Afternoon summary
- Labour has said that it will use “all mechanisms available” to force the government to release the full text of its legal advice relating to the Brexit deal, my colleague Jessica Elgot reports. The opposition toughened its language after Number 10 made it clear it was resisting calls for publish the full legal advice, even though MPs passed a binding motion saying it should be published. (See 4.39am.)
Labour vows to use "all mechanisms available" to force publication of Brexit deal legal advice.
— Jessica Elgot (@jessicaelgot) November 27, 2018
Starmer: "It's completely unacceptable for No10 to point-blank refuse to publish the full legal advice on the withdrawal agreement.Parliament was very clear in what it was demanding."
That’s all from me for today.
Comments are due to stay open until 7pm. Thanks for the contributions so far.
Japanese PM welcomes May's Brexit deal (as leaked plan said he would)
Three weeks ago a document purporting to give details of government plans to win public support for Theresa May’s Brexit deal (which at that point still had not been finalised) was leaked to the media. Downing Street insisted that it was not an official document and that it did not represent government thinking. But, if that was the case, in some respects it has turned out be uncannily prescient.
For one day on the grid, the document says:
Government lining up 25 top business voices including Carolyn Fairbairn and lots of world leaders e.g Japanese PM to tweet support for the deal.
Obviously the world leader thing did not work out too well with Donald Trump, but Shinzo Abe, the Japanese PM, has turned up right on cue. This morning he had a telephone conversation with May and afterwards Downing Street issued a read-out. It says:
The leaders discussed the importance of free trade and close co-operation between the UK and Japan.
Prime Minister Abe welcomed the progress the prime minister has made to secure an agreement with the European Union.
Updated
My colleague Peter Walker has more from Sajid Javid, the home secretary, at the home affairs committee.
Sajid Javid is pushed to admitting by home affairs committee that when he became home secretary he promised the Brexit immigration white paper by the end of July: “When I first came into the department I was hoping things were more ready than they were.”
— Peter Walker (@peterwalker99) November 27, 2018
Sajid Javid declines several times to tell the home affairs committee that the Brexit immigration white paper will contain the "tens of thousands" target for annual net migration. Javid says: “The white paper is not complete. You will have to wait for its publication.”
— Peter Walker (@peterwalker99) November 27, 2018
Javid also tells the committee that the "tens of thousands" figure was "an aspiration" rather than necessarily "a target". I hope that's clear.
— Peter Walker (@peterwalker99) November 27, 2018
Curious scenes at home affairs committee as Sajid Javid says no deal means end of freedom of movement in March 2019, but EU nationals would be able to arrive in same way, & employers would not have to check their status. So what's changed, asks Yvette Cooper, sounding baffled.
— Peter Walker (@peterwalker99) November 27, 2018
Updated
The health committee hearing on Brexit is now over. The committee is now questioning Hancock about health spending.
Back in the committee, Wollaston asks Hancock to confirm that, after Brexit, the UK will just have observer status with the European Medicines Agency. That is a significant downgrade.
Hancock says he is determined to ensure that does not lead to additional costs for drug companies.
It is possible that, outside the EU, the MHRA [the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency] could accelerate licensing arrangements in the UK.
As the Telegraph’s Jack Maidment reports, on the basis of what was said at the afternoon lobby Downing Street is making it clear that it is resisting calls to publish its Brexit legal advice in full, even though Labour says it must because that is what the Commons voted for. (See 11.48am.)
Pretty clear from this exchange that Number 10 has no intention of complying with the binding vote of the Commons on providing MPs with full Brexit legal advice before the meaningful vote. pic.twitter.com/ALMDiSJj7e
— Jack Maidment (@jrmaidment) November 27, 2018
Stevens says the fundamental drivers of health costs are bigger than anything related to Brexit.
Sarah Wollaston goes next.
Q: Will there be extra costs to the NHS as a result of Brexit?
Not that we can foresee, says Hancock.
But there will be changes. Exchange rate changes make a difference.
Q: And what impact will they have?
Hancock says he does not know. If economic forecasts are unreliable, exchange rate forecasts are even more unreliable, he says.
Q: Is there any form of Brexit that will produce lower costs for the NHS?
Hancock says many of the future costs are uncertain. There are scenarios where costs are higher, and scenarios were costs are lowers.
Wormald says there are clearly costs to the transition. But the factors that increase costs over the long term are the same around the world.
The Tory Johnny Mercer goes next.
Q: What people want to know is, is the NHS going to be okay after Brexit?
Stevens says in principle there is no reason why we cannot have an excellent NHS after Brexit. But the question is, what will happen during the transition.
What happens will depend on the nature of the transition, he says.
And it will depend on how other countries react. How the French act will be influence by the fact that there are a third of a million French people living here.
Q: But some of the stuff about people dying, and the UK running out of water, just sounds insane.
Stevens says the health department can’t determine what happens to transport. But the department is “moving heaven and earth” to ensure there will be no problems.
Hancock says, if everyone does what they have to do, the NHS will be fine.
And the NHS will be better off because the extra £20.5bn is going into the NHS whatever happens.
Labour’s Diana Johnson goes next.
Q: How are we going to meet the need for staff in the social care sector after Brexit?
Hancock says he does not accept that work in social care is low-skilled work. The workers are highly committed, and work with great dedication.
He says he has been a big supporter of the national living wage. That has increased pay in the sector. Some of the fastest pay rises in the economy have been in that sector, because of the national living wage.
He says he wants to make social care a rewarding career. There will be more on that in the social care green paper.
Q: Do you accept that recruiting from outside the EU will cost more than recruiting from within the EU?
Stevens says at the moment it costs more. But in the future it will depend on how the immigration system is constructed.
Luciana Berger, a Labour MP, goes next.
Q: You are spending money on more warehouse space. But how will you be sure that pharmaceutical companies use it to stockpile medicines?
Sir Chris Wormald, the permanent secretary at the Department of Health, says the department is talking to both.
Q: What are the benefits of the withdrawal agreement?
Hancock says it provides a smooth exit from the EU.
Q: Will there be a net benefit to the NHS?
Hancock says it will allow the government to deliver on the result of the referendum.
Q: Will the NHS be better off?
Hancock says it will be better off because an extra £20bn is going in.
Q: The PM said in her letter on Sunday that the NHS would get an extra £394m a week as a result of Brexit. But organisations like Full Fact say there is no such thing as a Brexit dividend.
Hancock says there will be money going into the EU now that will be available for things like the NHS. He says he used to be an economic forecasters, and he has a “healthy scepticism” of the value of economic forecasts.
Sarah Wollaston, the committee, says says the idea that there is a Brexit dividend is “nonsense”. The UK Statistics Authority has said that.
Hancock says there will be money available because the UK won’t be paying the EU. There are other arguments. But they rely on economic forecasts, and he is sceptical of those. He says in the EU referendum his side relied on forecasts about what would happen if leave one. Those forecasts were unreliable, he says.
Q: If parliament passed a motion against a no deal, would you de-activate these plans and save money?
Hancock says he would decide at the time.
Hancock says he is quite prepared to spend reasonable amounts of money to plan for a no deal Brexit. He says he would rather not spend money that will not be used, but in the health service there are many areas where money is spent on contingencies.
Hancock says the plan to expand refrigeration capacity will be the first bit of no deal planning involving spending money. A sum in the low tens of millions will be spent.
Ben Bradshaw, the Labour former cabinet minister, goes next.
Q: It has been reported that you told cabinet that you could not guaranteed that people would not die as a result of a no deal Brexit.
Hancock says he does not comment on leaks. But he says he has been very clear that, if everyone does what they need to do, there will be continuity.
Q: So you can’t guarantee that no one will die.
Hancock says his permanent secretary says he should not use words like guarantee. But he says, if everything goes to plan, there should be continuity.
Q: Do you agree with Amber Rudd that if the deal is voted down, MPs will block a no deal Brexit?
Hancock says he is voting for the deal. He will not speculate on what will happen if it is voted down. But he says he is preparing for all eventualities.
Q: The deal is doomed. If it does down, there will either be a referendum or a pivot to Norway. Are you preparing for those options?
Hancock says he is not sure what the question means. But he backs the deal. And Brexit will happen.
We will be leaving the European Union on 29 March.
Q: These scenarios are more likely than the deal. So you must be preparing for them.
Hancock says he does not accept the premise of the question.
Back in the health committee, Wollaston asks what happens if the value of sterling collapses. Will pharmaceutical companies than be tempted to export their drugs for a profit?
Hancock says they will be bound by contracts to supply the NHS.
Sajid Javid, the home secretary, is giving evidence to the Commons home affairs committee. According to the Sun’s Steve Hawkes, Javid got off to a punchy start.
Ouch - Sajid Javid asks HASC chair Yvette Cooper to delete a tweet from last week's session after admitting she made a mistake. Nice start
— steve hawkes (@steve_hawkes) November 27, 2018
Back in the committee Sarah Wollaston, the Conservative chair of the committee, goes next.
Q: Looking at supply chains, what will happen with blood products? And immunosuppressants? Will you write to this committee to say where the risks are?
Hancock says the UK is largely self-sufficient in blood products. But it imports from the EU 6.5% of its plasma units.
He says contingency plans are in place to guarantee an unhindered supply.
Wollaston says if the country does not have access to fresh, frozen plasma in a timely manner, that is a problem.
Hancock agrees. He says the department is planning for this.
Wollaston says the committee would like more clarity about where the problems might be.
Hancock says some of the information the department has had from suppliers has been submitted in accordance with commercial confidentiality.
Theresa May is now in Belfast.
Q: What will we do about recruitment issues?
Hancock says, with the end of free movement, the UK will be able to decide its own immigration rules.
The cap on the number of doctors and nurses from outside the EU has been lifted.
With more money going into the NHS, it will need more doctors and nurses. The NHS will look for the best around the world, he says.
Q: It has been reported you put it more strongly than “difficult” recently. People worry they won’t get medicines.
Hancock says it is very important that people get a reliable supply of medicines.
There are also workforce issues. But those are slower burn issues.
The number of people working in the NHS from the EU has gone up since the referendum.
Going back to medicines, he says under the transition things will remain the same.
And, for the future, there is a commitment to work with the EU to retain involvement in the European Medicines Agency.
But, if there is a no deal Brexit, it will be more difficult, he says.
He says an invitation to tender is out for more refrigeration capacity. The response to that has been good.
There is also a requirement to ensure short shelf-life isotypes can be brought it. They can be brought in by air, he says.
And he says further work is looking at how the supply of medicines and medical devices could be guaranteed beyond by six weeks.
He says the government has been clear that the stockpiling will be done by pharmaceutical companies. It does not need to be done by NHS trusts, he says.
The Tory MP Andrew Selous goes first.
Q: What would a no deal Brexit mean for the NHS?
Matt Hancock says the government thinks a no deal Brexit is “unlikely”. But the government prepares for all sorts of scenarios.
A no deal scenario for the NHS will be difficult ... but if everyone does everything they are required to do we will have an unhindered supply of medicines.
Matt Hancock gives evidence to MPs on impact of Brexit on NHS
Matt Hancock, the health secretary, is about to give evidence to the Commons health committee about the impact of Brexit on health and social care.
According to the Times (paywall), when the cabinet held its five-hour meeting to approve Theresa May’s Brexit deal earlier this month, Hancock “told the room that he could not guarantee people would not die as a result of a no deal Brexit.”
You can watch a live feed of the hearing here.
According to the Hansard Society, the research charity that promotes parliament, 55% of the time that was available for ministers to introduce statutory instruments (a form of secondary legislation) required for Brexit has elapsed. But only 22% of those SIs have been laid before parliament.
Sturgeon says support growing for Scottish government Norway-style Brexit plan
Scotland’s first minister Nicola Sturgeon argued today that the arguments that the Scottish government has been making for two years - for a Norway-style solution to Brexit - may be finally winning today.
Launching a fresh analysis based on Theresa May’s deal - which estimates Brexit will cost every Scot £1,600 each by 2030 - at Bute House in Edinburgh this afternoon, Sturgeon called on opposition parties in the Commons to come together to support either a people’s vote or the customs union/single market option summarised as the Norway option, which the Scottish government first proposed in its paper Scotland’s Place in Europe in December 2016.
She said that she would relish a general election, although she said it is not clear how that might be managed given the intricacies of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act, and once again refused to say when she would set out her thoughts on the timing of a second independence referendum.
Nor would she confirm which option - people’s vote or single market/customs union - would have a more positive impact on an independence vote.
She said, despite discussions she had at Westminster with opposition leaders last week, she had no sense of which of the two options would command a Commons majority. though her preference is for a second referendum.
She also told reporters that she was concerned that a televised debate between Corbyn and May would end up being “simply a debate about two versions of Brexit” given that Corbyn was yet to show himself to be an advocate for remain.
Updated
Here is Jolyon Maugham QC, the lawyer who organised the appeal to the European court of justice seeking a ruling on whether article 50 can be revoked, on today’s hearing.
Three observations. One. The UK Government's submissions were not so much about persuading the CJEU that the matter was hypothetical but for domestic consumption - persuading Brexiters that (contrary to what the Court of Session said) the matter was not one the CJEU should decide
— Jo Maugham QC (@JolyonMaugham) November 27, 2018
Two, the Council and Commission could not explain where you might find the machinery to limit revocability to unanimity. There is no intellectually dignified way to the solution for which they advocated.
— Jo Maugham QC (@JolyonMaugham) November 27, 2018
Three, a requirement for unanimity also enables Member State X to put its parochial interests above those both of the departing MS and the EU as a whole. Neither Council nor Commission had a respectable response to this.
— Jo Maugham QC (@JolyonMaugham) November 27, 2018
He’s not impressed with the Times’ coverage.
Times making a strong bid for 'World's Worst Take'. In fact, EU lawyers agreed with us that Brexit can be revoked. The only debate, on which those same EU lawyers took a pasting, was as to the terms. https://t.co/lot2Z1d1q0
— Jo Maugham QC (@JolyonMaugham) November 27, 2018
And here is a chart from the Scottish government’s 20-page report on Theresa May’s Brexit deal (pdf), comparing what it offers Scotland with the status quo.
My colleague Libby Brooks has been tweeting from the press conference where Nicola Sturgeon, Scotland’s first minister, has been publishing the Scottish government report on Theresa May’s Brexit deal.
Nicola Sturgeon is beginning her press conference at Bute House, presenting new Scottish govt analysis of impact of Brexit: “This is a bad Tory deal that UK govt is seeking to impose of Scotland”
— Libby Brooks (@libby_brooks) November 27, 2018
Sturgeon: we face years of further negotiations and uncertainty; UK govt red lines will make all of us poorer...equivalent to £1600 less per person in Scotland by 2030
— Libby Brooks (@libby_brooks) November 27, 2018
Sturgeon says that May has given up on governing by consensus & governing by threat; we will work with others to build support for alternative
— Libby Brooks (@libby_brooks) November 27, 2018
Sturgeon says SNP MPs can only vote against this deal, will support whatever compromise option majority emerges for in Commons: Norway style solution or People’s Vote
— Libby Brooks (@libby_brooks) November 27, 2018
Sturgeon: On subject of Scottish independence, she will “return to that matter when we know which approach to Brexit the Commons chooses.”
— Libby Brooks (@libby_brooks) November 27, 2018
Answering questions now, Sturgeon says she is ‘cautiously optimistic’ about Labour’s support for a People’s Vote: ‘I think they understand the responsibility on the shoulders of all opposition politicians’
— Libby Brooks (@libby_brooks) November 27, 2018
Re backstop: Sturgeon says this is not about ‘grudging’ NI a different relationship but arguing that whole of the UK should have it
— Libby Brooks (@libby_brooks) November 27, 2018
Re TV debate: Corbyn is as yet not an advocate for remain, so danger that if only Corbyn & May then you have a debate about 2 versions of Brexit only
— Libby Brooks (@libby_brooks) November 27, 2018
Updated
Lunchtime summary
- Labour has accused the government of defying the will of the Commons by not committing to publishing its full legal advice about the Brexit deal. (See 11.48am.)
- Theresa May has rejected President Trump’s claim that the Brexit deal could jeopardise a UK-US trade deal. (See 1.01pm.) But Lord Heseltine, the Conservative former deputy prime minister and prominent campaigner for a second referendum, said Trump’s comments were highly revealing. In a statement he said:
The latest and greatest collapse of the Brexit edifice has come with Donald Trump’s brutal and direct dismissal of the prospect of a trade deal under the terms negotiated by the government with the EU. Donald Trump has confirmed that Brexit Britain may not be able to get an agreement with the US at all.
We were told such trade deals would be the easiest thing ever and that there would be dozens ready to sign the second we left. None of this is true.
- May has confirmed that she wants to hold a TV debate on her Brexit deal with Jeremy Corbyn. (See 9.05am.) Boris Johnson, the Brexiter former foreign secretary, has said such a debate would be pointless. He posted these on Twitter.
Debates are great for democracy - but rather than widening discourse, this debate is narrowing it by offering a false choice between May’s failing deal and Corbyn’s vague proposals - neither of which are Brexit 1/2
— Boris Johnson (@BorisJohnson) November 27, 2018
There is no point having a debate with two people who voted Remain & deals that don’t take back control. Any debate must involve someone who believes in Brexit & the British people being fully in control of their laws, rather than giving back control to the EU like the PM's deal
— Boris Johnson (@BorisJohnson) November 27, 2018
- European judges are considering an emergency legal challenge over whether the UK can unilaterally halt Brexit by reversing article 50, the clause that initiated the country’s departure from the EU. As the FT reports (paywall), in the hearing the EU’s lawyer argued that the UK could not revoke article 50 unilaterally. The FT says:
Hubert Legal, the European council’s top lawyer, insisted that unlike the voluntary decision to trigger article 50, cancelling it would require the unanimous support from all 27 governments in order to protect the interests of the EU as a whole.
“There is no parallelism between the right to notify and the right to take back,” said Mr Legal. “National processes cannot suffice to pull the carpet on which everyone has been forced to stand on,” he said.
The crux of the EU’s argument is that allowing a government to cancel the exit process would encourage member states to abuse the process in order to gain concessions from the bloc on better terms of membership.
In such a situation, the two-year clock that is started under article 50 would be transformed from a process to organise a country’s exit, into a negotiation to “charm the notifying sheep back to the flock” on terms that would weaken the EU project, said Mr Legal.
- Damian Collins, chair of parliament’s inquiry into fake news and disinformation, has claimed Facebook knew about potentially malicious Russian activity on the network in October 2014, years before such activity became public. As the Press Association reports, quoting from internal Facebook emails seized from US software company Six4Three, Collins said an engineer had warned “entities with Russian IP addresses” accessed “three billion data points a day”. There is more covering on our live blog of the committee’s hearing.
- The Scottish government has claimed that the May’s Brexit deal could “cost the equivalent of £1,600 for each person in Scotland by 2030, compared to continued EU membership”. It included the figure in an economic assessment (pdf) just published.
- The long-serving peer and former member of the Bletchley Park codebreaking team, Lady Trumpington, has died at the age of 96. Theresa May posted this tribute on Twitter.
Baroness Trumpington had a truly extraordinary career – from her work at Bletchley Park during WW2 to her decades of public service in local and national Government.
— Theresa May (@theresa_may) November 27, 2018
She was a formidable figure in British politics and her kindness and humour will be sorely missed.
Updated
Several influential parliamentary committees have begun work on the consequences of Theresa May’s Brexit deal - and the fallout if it fails to pass.
MPs on the Brexit select committee are in the early stages of preparing a report on the consequences of the Brexit deal failing to make it through the House of Commons, the Guardian understands.
The report from the exiting the EU select committee is set to be published before the meaningful vote in parliament on 11 December, with the weekend before pencilled in for publication date. Exact content and timings are yet to be determined.
The Treasury select committee is also taking evidence on the withdrawal agreement and political declaration and is set to begin taking evidence next week, including from the chancellor, Philip Hammond, and the Bank of England governor, Mark Carney.
Updated
More than 150 young protesters have descended on the Houses of Parliament to call for a people’s vote on Brexit and show politicians they value being European Union citizens, the Press Association reports. They travelled from across the UK and filled the House of Commons lobby this morning, requesting in droves to speak with their local MPs. The demonstration, organised by youth movement Our Future, Our Choice (OFOC), was aimed at making the government hear about the ways Brexit could hurt young people. Nat Shaughnessy, a University College London student and OFOC organiser, said:
It’s not about reversing the result of the first referendum. It’s about having a reasonable debate on the benefits of EU membership. We feel like young people should be at the front of that, given we have to live with it the longest.
May rejects DUP claim she has given up on trying to get better Brexit deal
Theresa May answered a series of questions from reporters when she was in Wales. I have already posted her response to Donald Trump’s comments about a trade deal (see 1.01pm). Here are some other the other things she said.
- May rejected Arlene Foster’s claim that she has given up on trying to get a better Brexit deal. (See 12.32pm.) Asked about Foster’s comment, she replied:
We have been resisting many of the things the European Union had wanted to put.
When you negotiate, neither side gets 100% of what they want, it is about compromising but you have to be clear about what your vital interests are, and we have protected those vital interests and that includes protecting the interests of the people of Northern Ireland.
- She rejected calls for representatives from other parties to be included in her proposed TV debate with Jeremy Corbyn. Asked about this, she replied:
Of course I am going to be debating in the House of Commons with all parties on the issue of the Brexit deal.
Jeremy Corbyn and I are leaders of parties that cover getting on for 90% of all MPs in the House of Commons.
This is a really important moment for our country. I have a clear deal that I believe is in the interests of the UK and I think it is right for people to hear what Jeremy Corbyn’s views are as those have been a little uncertain recently about exactly where he stands.
- She refused to say what she would do if she lost the vote on her deal. This, of course, is the question preoccupying the nation’s entire political class. But the reporters who asked it did not get any further than the many MPs who tried in the Commons yesterday, and last week. Asked if she had a “plan B”, May replied:
I am focusing on the vote that will take place in the House of Commons and I am focusing on what is a very significant decision for members of parliament to take for the future of our country.
I ask every member of parliament to consider the national interest in doing so, to recognise the need to deliver on Brexit and to do it in a way that protects people’s jobs.
If the deal is voted down in the House of Commons, it will lead to more division and more uncertainty.
My focus ... many people said I wouldn’t get this deal, I’ve got this deal ... my focus now is taking this deal through the House of Commons because it is a good deal for the UK, it is a deal that is in the national interest and in the interest of the whole of the United Kingdom.
- She dismissed suggestions that Sir Michael Fallon’s comments today (see 9.53am) meant she was losing support for her deal. When this was put to her, she replied:
The Brexit deal has been agreed and I am taking that to the House of Commons ... I think what is important when MPs come to vote is that they think about the national interest - that means delivering on Brexit but it means doing it in a way that delivers for people in protecting their security, protecting their jobs, protecting their livelihoods.
May insists UK will be able to do trade deal with US after Brexit despite Trump's claims
Theresa May recorded a clip for broadcasters on her visit to Wales. She used it to insist that, despite what President Trump said yesterday, a trade deal with the US would be possible after Brexit. She said:
If you look at the political declaration which sets out the future framework for our relationship with the European Union, it clearly identifies that we will have an independent trade policy and we will be able to do trade deals, to negotiate trade deals, with countries around the rest of the world.
And, as regards the United States, we’ve already been talking to them about the sort of agreement we could have with them in the future. We’ve got a working group set up which is working very well, has met several times, [and we’re] continuing to work with the US on this ...
We will have that ability, outside the European Union, to make those decisions on trade deals for ourselves. It will no longer be a decision being taken by Brussels. We will have control of that and we will strike trade deals that will enhance our prosperity, enhance our economy and bring jobs to the UK.
Everyone is trying to work out what will happen if, as seems inevitable (just look at the numbers), Theresa May loses the Brexit vote a fortnight today. ITV’s political editor Robert Peston has had a go in a post on his Facebook page. He thinks Jeremy Corbyn could respond by committing to a second referendum, prompting Theresa May to retaliate by proposing some form of government of national unity.
Here’s an extract.
According to senior Labour sources, Corbyn is close to agreeing that shortly (days) after the loss of the meaningful vote by May, he would formally make his party the champion of another referendum or people’s vote - on the basis that if there is no consensus in parliament on what comes next, the question has to go back to the people.
At this conjuncture, there might well be a clear parliamentary majority for such a referendum - with the choice between May’s deal (as the only negotiated deal) and remaining in the EU - if the Tory MPs who currently say they back a plebiscite stick to their guns.
Which is why, if May sees this coming (which presumably she must), she may try to head it off at the pass by saying shortly after losing the vote that she remains committed to Brexit and will in effect lead a government of national unity to capture the will of parliament on what kind of Brexit is sought by most MPs.
Updated
DUP leader Arlene Foster claims May has 'given up' on trying to get good Brexit deal
Arlene Foster, the DUP leader, gave an interview to the BBC ahead of Theresa May’s visit to Northern Ireland this afternoon and she claimed that May had “given up” on trying to get a good Brexit deal.
I think the disappointing thing for me is the prime has given up when she’s saying: ‘This is where we are and we just have to accept that.’ She may have given up on further negotiations and trying to find a better deal, but I haven’t given up. I believe in a better way forward and I believe we must find it.
In the interview Foster also restated her opposition to the plans in the deal for the backstop.
May will have a chance to respond when the two leaders meet later.
Updated
No 10 says May has no plans for bilateral talks with Trump at G20 later this week
At the Downing Street lobby briefing the prime minister’s spokesman also responded to President Trump’s comments about the Brexit deal not being good for trade with the US. The spokesman said “positive and productive discussions” had already taken place between the UK and the US over a post-Brexit trade deal. He went on:
The deal that we have agreed with the European Union clearly sets out that the UK will be developing an independent trade policy for the first time in 40 years so that the UK has the freedom to sign trade deals with countries around the world, including the US.
Work is already under way to lay the groundwork for an ambitious trade agreement with the United States.
We have been having positive and productive discussions with the US through our joint UK/US trade and investment working group. That has met five times so far and the latest meeting was this month.
The spokesman also said there were no plans for Theresa May and Trump to have one-to-one talks at the G20 in Argentina later this week. Asked about this, he said:
It is not something we have requested. The prime minister’s diary is agreed in advance and she is meeting with a number of world leaders to discuss issues like trade and security.
We have met with the president on a number of occasions in recent months and the bilaterals that are agreed for the G20 are done so in advance, and they don’t include the US president.
Updated
Here are some pictures from Theresa May’s visit to Wales.
Updated
Labour accuses government of defying will of Commons by not releasing full Brexit legal advice
Sir Keir Starmer, the shadow Brexit secretary, has written to David Lidington, the Cabinet Office minister, saying the government must publish the full legal advice on the Brexit deal. Starmer says a summary, which is what the government seems to be offering (see 11.26am), is not sufficient and does not comply with the terms of the Commons vote.
Here is an extract.
At this crucial stage parliament must be given the necessary information to know precisely what has been agreed to and what it is being asked for vote on. Labour and parliament will accept nothing short of the full legal advice presented to cabinet. A legal summary is clearly not sufficient and will not comply with the unanimous decision made by the House of Commons.
At the Downing Street lobby briefing the prime minister’s spokesman said that a “full, reasoned position statement” is what Lidington offered to publish in the debate two weeks ago. The prime minister’s spokesman told journalists:
The position is as set out by David Lidington in his statement to the House a couple of weeks ago. This is for a full reasoned position statement laying out the government’s political and also legal position on the proposed withdrawal agreement and attached protocols. So the commitment remains as it was set out a couple of weeks ago.
As my colleague Heather Stewart points out, that is correct. But Lidington offered that in the hope of getting Labour to withdraw its motion. It didn’t, and the Labour motion went through without opposition. It commits the government to publishing the legal advice in full.
PM's spox insisted to journalists at the lobby briefing just now that government's position was as set out by @DLidington in the Commons - but that was *before* they lost the vote.
— Heather Stewart (@GuardianHeather) November 27, 2018
UPDATE: Here is the Starmer letter in full.
My letter to David Lidington demanding publication of the government’s full legal advice on its Brexit deal in the next two days. Parliament is entitled to know full legal implications of what the Prime Minister has signed up to. Full transparency and rigorous scrutiny essential. pic.twitter.com/I20A2CUck9
— Keir Starmer (@Keir_Starmer) November 27, 2018
Updated
Ministers suggests MPs may not be shown full legal advice on Brexit deal, contrary to what Commons demanded
In the House of Lords, in response to a written question from Lord Myners asking when the government plans to publish the legal advice from the attorney general about the backstop plan in the EU withdrawal agreement, Lord Keen of Elie, the advocate general for Scotland and a Ministry of Justice spokesperson in the Lords, said the government was planning to publish “a full, reasoned position statement”. Here is is reply in full:
The government recognises the legitimate desire in parliament, from members on all sides and in both houses, to understand the legal implications of the final withdrawal agreement. The government will therefore make available to all members of parliament a full, reasoned position statement, setting out the government’s agreed legal position on the agreement, including the Irish backstop proposals. The attorney will also make a statement to the House of Commons and take questions. This will help to ensure parliament has all appropriate information ahead of the vote on the final deal.
We expect the attorney general’s statement to be repeated in the Lords, with questions.
This is likely to generate a row because two weeks ago the House of Commons approved a Labour motion binding on the government (because it used the “humble address” procedure) saying the government should publish the full legal advice relating to the Brexit deal. A “full, reasoned position statement” is not the same thing.
Updated
This week’s Private Eye cover ...
Her best bet now pic.twitter.com/s0QZJFCJaP
— Kevin Maguire (@Kevin_Maguire) November 27, 2018
Patrick O'Flynn quits Ukip to join SDP
Patrick O’Flynn, the former Daily Express journalist who became a Ukip MEP and at one stage was the party’s economic spokesman, has announced that he is leaving the party because of its leader, Gerard Batten’s, support for Tommy Robinson. In a blog explaining his decision O’Flynn says:
Since Gerard Batten became Ukip leader I have tried to use my influence to persuade him to maintain his focus on Brexit and abandon an apparent and growing fixation with Tommy Robinson ...
Without any mandate from the membership or the party’s elected ruling body to go down this path, Gerard is transforming what Ukip stands for and offers to voters. Many longstanding party members have already left as a result.
Today I am joining them because I have reached the sorry conclusion that Ukip under its current direction and at this decisive moment has become an impediment to the Brexit campaigning that I have energetically pursued for many years.
The key question in British politics now is which party are millions of sensible, moderate Brexit voters betrayed by establishment parties but wishing no tie-up with Tommy Robinson supposed to vote for? The answer, alas, is clearly not Ukip.
O’Flynn also declares that he is joining what he describes as “the resurgent SDP, which campaigned for Brexit during the referendum and espouses broad and moderate pro-nation state political values that I – and I believe many of our voters from 2014 – will be delighted to endorse.”
According to Wikipedia, the SDP got just 469 votes in total in the 2017 general election. But that was up from 125 in 2015 - an almost fourfold increase - and so perhaps it is “resurgent”.
Updated
My colleagues Jessica Elgot and Dan Sabbagh have been keeping a tally of how MPs are intending to vote on the Brexit deal. There latest assessment is here.
We will be updating this regularly ahead of the vote. If you are aware of any mistakes, or any MPs who have made voting declarations that we have not included, please do tell us. (Using Twitter to contact Jess, Dan, or me is probably best, but you could also email, or just leave a message BTL.)
Updated
Last night Gavin Barwell, Theresa May’s chief of staff, gave a briefing in parliament to Labour MPs about the PM’s Brexit plan. But by reaching out to the opposition Number 10 has angered some Tory Brexiters, and this morning one of them, Maria Caulfield, accused Barwell of going back on a promise. She said:
It is so disappointing that after Gavin Barwell faithfully promised me and many other colleagues that Number 10 would never try to gain Labour MPs support against us as a party, it seems they have gone back on their pledge. Not least because doing so would destroy the government.
Yet now Number 10 is trying to do what it swore it never would.
No 10’s policy of trying to get BRINO [Brexit in name only] on Labour votes will destroy this government and let Jeremy Corbyn into Downing Street.
PoliticsHome’s Matt Foster has got a very thorough account of what was said at the briefing. But if you are expecting any surprises, I’m afraid you will be disappointed. As is often (but not always) the case, what is being said in private is more or less exactly the same as what is being said in public.
Updated
The former prime minister David Cameron has joined those paying tribute to Lady Trumpington, the Conservative peer and former Bletchley Park codebreaker who has died at the age of 96.
So very sad to hear that Baroness Trumpington has passed away. She was one of a kind - they simply don’t make politicians like that anymore. She will be sorely missed in Westminster but long remembered for her outstanding ability and great humour. RIP Trumpers. pic.twitter.com/4VNU9kJKCw
— David Cameron (@David_Cameron) November 27, 2018
There are more tributes in our story here.
The SNP’s Joanna Cherry has also been tweeting from the ECJ hearing.
Extraordinarily U.K. Govt Counsel addresses only the admissibility & not the substance of the case #Article50 revocation case #CJEU #StopBrexit #PeoplesVote
— Joanna Cherry QC MP (@joannaccherry) November 27, 2018
So to summarise at #CJEU no one has argued that #Art50 can’t be revoked. The argument is whether it can be done unilaterally or only with permission. UK Govt threw its toys out of the pram & refused to address the substantive question #StopBrexit #PeoplesVote
— Joanna Cherry QC MP (@joannaccherry) November 27, 2018
FYI it’s VERY unusual for a senior lawyer to refuse to address the substantive question before the court. I’ve never seen it happen & conventional wisdom is that it’s very unwise. Rather fits with UK Govts political approach...#Art50 #CJEU #Brexit
— Joanna Cherry QC MP (@joannaccherry) November 27, 2018
Fallon says government should delay Brexit to try for better deal
When Theresa May spoke in the Commons for two-and-a-half hours yesterday about her Brexit deal, one of the most damning interventions came from Sir Michael Fallon, the former defence secretary. Fallon voted remain in the EU referendum and he is generally seen as a staunch loyalist (although No 10 did reportedly give him a push when he resigned from cabinet last year over inappropriate behaviour towards women). But in the chamber yesterday he spoke out strongly against May’s Brexit deal, in a move that created the impression that opposition to the plan is intensifying.
Fallon was on the Today programme this morning elaborating on his anti-deal argument. Here are the main points he made.
- Fallon insisted that the deal was “doomed”. He said:
My fear is that this deal gives us the worst of all worlds. No guarantee of smooth trade in the future and no ability to reduce the tariffs that we need to conclude trade deals with the rest of the world.
So, unless the House of Commons can be persuaded somehow that those are possible then I think, yes, the deal is doomed.
- He said that President Trump’s objections to the deal could not easily be dismissed. He said:
It’s no use us just brushing that off, saying: ‘no, no we can do a deal with America’, he’s the president of the United States, and if he says it’s going to be difficult, then it certainly looks like it’s going to be difficult. This is not a good deal and we need a better deal.
- He said the government should delay Brexit and try to get a better deal. He said:
This is not a good deal and we need a better deal.
If it’s possible to get a better deal, to send the negotiators back to Brussels for two or three months, to postpone the actual leaving date for two or three months, I still think that in the long term that would be in the best interest of the country.
We have to get this right.
Updated
There would be no point in sending Brexit negotiators back to Brussels or extending article 50 because no other withdrawal deal is on offer, David Lidington, Theresa May’s de facto deputy, told the Today programme this morning. My colleague Jessica Elgot has the full story.
And this is from the Labour MP Chris Leslie, one of the parties to the ECJ case.
NEW: At European Court just now, lawyer for EU Council agrees that UK’s revocation of Article 50 notice “should not be excluded” by the Court.
— Chris Leslie (@ChrisLeslieMP) November 27, 2018
Important concession suggesting that, in view of EU27, we DO have right-to-revoke the #Brexit notice.
And here are some lines from the ECJ hearing. (See 9.15am.)
Brexit: Hearing in Case C-621/18 Wightman on the possibility to revoke Article 50 has started. Full Court hearing the arguments. pic.twitter.com/pZYT83sskZ
— EU Court of Justice (@EUCourtPress) November 27, 2018
These are from the BBC’s Adam Fleming.
The Article 50 case at the ECJ has begun. Lawyer for the British MSPs, MPs and MEPs arguing that requiring unanimity to revoke A50 would "ride roughshod" over EU principles, meaning a state could be forced out against its will if it changed its mind.
— Adam Fleming (@adamfleming) November 27, 2018
He ends his argument saying that parliamentarians need to know what options are available to them when they vote on Brexit.
— Adam Fleming (@adamfleming) November 27, 2018
Lawyer for @ChrisLeslieMP and @thomasbrake says another member state could block a possible revocation of A50 and "destroy" that country's rights, if it has to unanimous.
— Adam Fleming (@adamfleming) November 27, 2018
UK government's lawyer argues the case is inadmissible. UK doesn't intend to revoke A50 and the potential reactions of the EU27 are "unknown and unknowable."
— Adam Fleming (@adamfleming) November 27, 2018
Government adds that the case has been brought by opponents of Brexit who will use the Court's ruling or comments as "ammunition" in their political campaign.
— Adam Fleming (@adamfleming) November 27, 2018
Now it's the European Council which says the only unilateral bit of A50 is the letter from the departing country. If it could withdraw the notification and resubmit then it could "keep the ball rolling" until it got a better deal at the EU's expense.
— Adam Fleming (@adamfleming) November 27, 2018
Today the European court of justice in Luxembourg will consider a case that’s likely to add a fair wind to the sails of a the People’s Vote campaign if it proves successful - the question of whether the UK can unilaterally stop Brexit.
The case has been brought by a cross-party group of six Scottish MPs, MEPs and MSPs, along with Jolyon Maugham QC, the director of the Good Law Project, who helped arrange the case after a crowdfunding appeal. They want the ECJ to offer a definitive ruling on whether the UK can halt the article 50 process without needing the approval of the 27 other EU member states.
The UK government insists that this is hypothetical, as the UK is leaving the EU come what may. But recent political experience would suggest that what-ifs can easily become plan Bs in these liminal times.
Article 50 is silent on whether the member state that triggered it unilaterally can also cancel it unilaterally. UK ministers and the European commission have indicated they believe that withdrawing an article 50 application requires the consent of the 27 other EU member states.
Last week, the UK’s supreme court dismissed a last-minute attempt by the Brexit secretary to derail the hearing. In a decision released last Tuesday, three justices - including the president of the court, Lady Hale - refused the Department for Exiting the European Union permission to challenge a ruling by Scotland’s highest court that the issue should be referred to the European court of justice in Luxembourg.
The SNP’s Joanna Cherry, one of the MPs involved and a vocal supporter of the campaign for a people’s vote, said in advance of the hearing:
Theresa May wants MPs to think the options are her deal or no deal at all, but even she has recently acknowledged there is a third option of no Brexit. We expect this case to establish as a matter of legal certainty that Brexit may be stopped altogether by revoking the article 50 notice either with permission or unilaterally.
The fact that the UK government has fought this case tooth and nail at considerable expense shows how desperate the PM is to prevent MPs having the certainty that Brexit can be stopped and that is the question on which the court of justice will now rule.
Updated
May confirms she wants TV debate with Corbyn on Brexit deal before historic Commons vote
Theresa May has confirmed that she wants to hold a TV debate with Jeremy Corbyn about her Brexit plan. No 10 were reluctant to confirm this yesterday, when the idea was widely floated, but May has committed herself in an interview with the Sun. She told the paper:
I am going to be going out and round the country. I am going to be talking to people. I am going to be explaining why I think this deal is the right deal for the UK - and yes, I am ready to debate it with Jeremy Corbyn. Because I have got a plan. He hasn’t got a plan ...
Exactly how it might be done, if he takes it up, would be a matter for the broadcasters to determine.
What I think is important is that people are able to see the issues around this plan. I am willing to stand up and explain why I think it is the best possible deal available for the UK.
It is not hard to see why Downing Street was keen to win some goodwill by offering the Sun an exclusive. Yesterday in an editorial the paper described May’s Brexit deal as “not a diplomatic compromise” but “surrender”. But it will take more than a scoop about a TV debate to win the paper round.
Labour has said that Corbyn would “relish” the chance to debate May on TV, but remainers and supporters of a hard Brexit are saying it would be wrong for such an event to go ahead without their views being represented. And, as my colleague Jim Waterson says in his article on this, broadcasters may not be keen to give May the Sunday evening slot she wants.
Downing Street’s desire for a peak slot may come against the brutal reality of TV schedules. The prime minister’s team want the largest possible audience for such a debate, but the only logistically possible Sunday night that could work is 9 December, which could bring its own problems if they wish to appear on one of the biggest terrestrial channels.
That evening, BBC One is set to show Countryfile, the season finales of Doctor Who and David Attenborough’s Dynasties, plus Strictly Come Dancing and a new drama by Jimmy McGovern. Meanwhile, ITV will be showing the final of I’m a Celebrity … Get Me Out of Here.
It is unlikely that a sceptical audience settling down for Sunday night viewing would welcome any of the shows being interrupted or delayed, even for a political debate that could shape the future of Britain.
No doubt we will hear more on this today, including from May herself, who is starting her national tour to win support for her deal.
Here is the agenda for the day.
10.45am: Our Future, Our Choice, the youth campaign for a second referendum, hold at protest at Westminster.
11.30am: Richard Allan, a Facebook vice president, gives evidence to the Commons culture committee on fake news.
2.30pm: Matt Hancock, the health secretary, gives evidence to the Commons health committee on the impact of Brexit on the NHS.
3.30pm: Sajid Javid, the home secretary, gives evidence to the Commons home affairs committee.
Also today Theresa May is visiting Northern Ireland and Wales, on the first day of her national tour to win support for her Brexit plan.
And in Luxembourg the European court of justice will hear a case brought by Scottish parliamentarians who are seeking a ruling on whether the UK can revoke article 50.
As usual, I will also be covering breaking political news as it happens, as well as bringing you the best reaction, comment and analysis from the web. I plan to post a summary at lunchtime and another when I finish, at around 5.30pm.
Here is the Politico Europe round-up of this morning’s political news. And here is the PoliticsHome list of today’s top 10 must-reads.
If you want to follow me or contact me on Twitter, I’m on @AndrewSparrow.
I try to monitor the comments BTL but normally I find it impossible to read them all. If you have a direct question, do include “Andrew” in it somewhere and I’m more likely to find it. I do try to answer direct questions, although sometimes I miss them or don’t have time.
If you want to attract my attention quickly, it is probably better to use Twitter.
Updated
