Afternoon summary
That’s all from me for today.
Thanks for the comments.
Have a good weekend.
And, while we are on Brexit, here are two columns published today that should be read by anyone who thinks that Jeremy Corbyn’s decision to embrace a second referendum means there is a good chance of one actually happening.
Jeremy Corbyn’s decision to commit Labour to backing a second referendum is a bit like Corbyn committing to giving you a million pounds out of his own pocket. It’s a lovely idea but it falls down for one important reason: Corbyn does not have a million pounds lying around to spare, and he cannot create a parliamentary majority to stop Brexit.
So why has he promised to do it? Well, just as if Corbyn promised to give you a million pounds you would probably like him more, it comes down to the question of Labour’s electoral viability. Labour is not looking in as healthy a position as it once was , for a variety of reasons.
In England, it is being menaced by the creation of a new party, the Independent Group, and in Scotland and Wales it faces losing votes and seats to the two nations’ pro-EU and pro-independence parties, the SNP and Plaid Cymru.
So the important question about Corbyn’s Brexit position is not “what does it mean for Brexit?” (a question to which the answer is “nothing at all whatsoever”). The important question is “will it make Labour more popular and see off the threat of TIG, SNP and Plaid Cymru?”
Ever since the referendum result upended British politics, it has been claimed by many that Labour is in possession of a big shiny Stop Brexit button that it is spitefully refusing to press. This theory is about to meet its nemesis: political reality. When the amendment falls, there will undoubtedly be relentless attempts to blame Labour, that it didn’t whip hard enough. But such claims will be based in cynicism rather than truth.
Yet there remains a political dilemma for Labour’s leadership. It needs to maintain the support of – and win more – economically leftist leave voters, whose voices are rarely heard on social media, but who are nonetheless numerous. After supporting this referendum it will have to tell them: look, we tried to make this work, we resisted relentless pressure for three years, we even endured a split, but the Tories’ disastrous mismanagement of Brexit left us with no option.
And it is torn in another direction, too. One of the most striking political phenomena of the last three years is that while the “Stop Brexit” campaigns have failed to win over leave voters in any decisive number, they have succeeded in making existing remain voters more angry about Brexit than they were the morning after the referendum result ...
Labour has to lovebomb those remain voters, too, emphasising the political chasm that exists between it and a Tory party increasingly dominated by the Rees-Mogg tendency.
May should have been more robust with EU in Brexit talks, says her former aide Nick Timothy
As well as speaking to the BBC (see 1.37pm), Nick Timothy, Theresa May’s most influential policy adviser until he resigned after the 2017 general election, has also given an interview to Channel 4 News. In it, he said that May should have been more robust in her dealings with the EU. Arguing that the UK had made mistakes in the Brexit talks, he said:
Some of it is to do with negotiating style. Theresa was always of the view that the best way to get something out of negotiations, especially in Europe, is to consistently show goodwill and not descend into some of the name-calling and game-playing that sometimes takes place. I think her goodwill has sometimes been pocketed without Britain getting much in return.
Timothy also said May thought that the main advantage of Brexit would be that it would allow the UK to control immigration.
Theresa’s instincts have been that economically, this is a risk to be managed, but politically this is an opportunity and that main opportunity is to recover control of immigration.
If you look at it like that, then you see why the deal she has negotiated actually makes sense and is potentially - according to those objectives - something of a success.
But I think that for those of us who see it in much broader sovereignty terms and also see that there are economic opportunities - as well as undoubted risks to be managed - it doesn’t seem quite so successful.
The Financial Times’ Alan Beattie has a good Twitter thread on the the US trade deal objectives. (See 10.54am.) It starts here.
Those US negotiating objectives for a UK trade deal. What do you reckon this bit is referring to? (Clue: Nye Bevan.) And BTW - "procedural fairness" can be a bit of a Trojan horse.
— Alan Beattie (@alanbeattie) March 1, 2019
"Procedural Fairness for Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices:
- Seek standards to ensure that /mf
NFU says any UK-US trade deal must not allow lowering of food standards
The National Farmers’ Union has said that any UK-US trade deal must not lead to a lowering of standards in Britain. Responding to the release in Washington of a document setting out the US priorities for a deal (see 10.54am), the NFU president Minette Batters said in a statement:
It comes as no surprise that the USA is seeking comprehensive access to the UK’s agricultural market and is pushing for a trade deal that accepts US production standards and practices.
The NFU has been very clear on this point. It is imperative that any future trade deals, including a possible deal with the USA, do not allow the imports of food produced to lower standards than those required of British farmers.
British people value and demand the high standards of animal welfare, environmental protection and food safety that our own farmers adhere to. These world-leading standards must not be sacrificed in the pursuit of reaching rushed trade deals. We should not accept trade deals which allow food to be imported into this country produced in ways which would be illegal here.
Updated
This is from my colleague Daniel Boffey in Brussels.
NEW: Michel Barnier has told EU ambasssors that there has been no progress. Brits keep on banging on about time limit and exit mechanism - but we keep on telling them it isn’t going to happen.
— Daniel Boffey (@DanielBoffey) March 1, 2019
May's former policy chief Nick Timothy criticises her for failing to acknowledge 'economic opportunities' of Brexit
The BBC has broadcast extracts from an interview with Nick Timothy, Theresa May’s former co chief of staff and her most influential policy adviser until he resigned after the 2017 general election. In it Timothy, a Brexiter who wrote the speeches in which May rejected a soft Brexit early in her premiership, criticises his former boss for not recognising the “economic opportunities” of leaving the EU. He says:
I think one of the reasons we are where we are, is that many ministers - and I would include Theresa in this - struggled to see any economic upside to Brexit. They see it as a damage limitation exercise.
If you see it in that way [as damage limitation] then inevitably you’re not going to be prepared to take the steps that would enable you to fully realise the economic opportunities of leaving.
We’ve only seen an extract, and so it is not clear whether or not in the full interview Timothy elaborates on what these economic opportunities actually are. The Treasury has had difficulty identifying them. In its economic impact assessment published in November last year it concluded that the UK would be worse off under all Brexit scenarios than it would be if it remained in the EU. As this chart shows, it did concede that there could be some modest benefits from new trade deals and from the regulatory flexibility available outside the EU. (Look at the wafer-thin bars above the 0% line in the chart below.) But these would not compensate for the far, far bigger negative impact of factors like customs costs, non-tariff barriers and immigrations restrictions (the chunky bars below the 0% line), it argued.
Updated
US drug firms would be able to charge NHS more under Trump trade plan, campaigners claim
The People’s Vote campaign, which wants a second referendum, has published its assessment of the US demands for a trade deal. (See 10.54am.) Rather than focus on the threat to agriculture, it is highlighting a single line in the document under the heading “Procedural fairness for pharmaceuticals and medical devices” which says a US negotiating objective will be to:
Seek standards to ensure that government regulatory reimbursement regimes are transparent, provide procedural fairness, are nondiscriminatory, and provide full market access for US products
People’s Vote says this means Washington wants to remove rules that limit what American drug companies can charge the NHS. In a statement put out by the campaign, the Labour MP Jo Stevens said:
Donald Trump’s administration has now made it clear just what it will be demanding from the UK in return for a trade deal - and one of those things is that we let big US companies run riot in the NHS.
One demand of the US is that the NHS pay more to US drug companies and that that US drug companies, the very corporations that have caused the opioids crisis in their home countries through reckless marketing and pressure on doctors, get full access to the NHS – long a demand from US mega-lobbyists in the pay of Big Pharma.
The People’s Vote analysis also claims that the US document shows it wants to end restrictions on the personal data being sent to the US, and that it wants to allow the resale of industrial goods in the UK that are currently banned as waste. This could lead to items that contain materials like asbestos being put on the market, People’s Vote claims.
Updated
US trade demands could cause lasting damage to food and drink sector in Scotland, says SNP
The SNP says Washington’s demands for a UK-US trade deal (see 10.54am) could cause lasting damaging to farming and the food and drink industry in Scotland. In a statement issued by the party, Gail Ross MSP said:
The US government’s trade demands couldn’t be clearer – they want the UK to leave the door wide open to produce like chlorinated chicken and hormone-injected beef.
Not only does that raise questions over health issues given that these products are currently banned by the EU, it is also a direct threat to Scotland’s world class food and drink sector.
The Tories have repeatedly failed to ensure that Brexit will not put Scotland’s high-quality food and environmental standards at risk.
And if they now give in to Donald Trump’s bargain basement demands, as seems likely, the Tory government runs the risk of causing long-lasting damage to our world-renowned agricultural and farming industries, and our food and drink sector.
That reputation could be smashed to pieces if the Tories desperately succumb to every one of the US’s demands.
PM still has confidence in Chris Grayling, says No 10
This morning’s Downing Street lobby briefing was dominated by questions about the performance of Chris Grayling, after the beleaguered minister’s department agreed to pay out to ensure the Channel Tunnel is ready to continue to keep passengers and freight moving in a no-deal Brexit scenario. A Downing Street spokesman insisted that the prime minister continued to have confidence in the transport secretary, despite the payout, citing progress he had made on Heathrow development and with rail investment as successes for the minister.
Downing Street was also forced to defend Grayling’s time as justice secretary, following a critical report by the National Audit Office into the part-privatisation of the probation service, and said that while his successor David Gauke had been forced to bring back the contracts in-house, 40,000 low and medium risk offenders were now being monitored after release from prison in a way they had not been before.
A key plank of Theresa May’s “hostile environment” immigration policy has been declared incompatible with human rights law in a damning ruling handed down at the high court, Amelia Hill and Diane Taylor report. The controversial Right to Rent scheme forces private landlords to check the immigration status of tenants and potential tenants. Unlimited fines or even a prison sentence can be levied under the policy to any landlord who rents to undocumented migrants. In a robust judgement, Mr Justice Spencer said the much-criticised policy was unlawful because it caused landlords to discriminate against British citizens from minority ethnic backgrounds and against foreign nationals who have a legal right to rent.
Here is the full story.
Updated
Tim Farron, the former Lib Dem leader, says the US document setting out its priorities for a trade deal with the UK (see 10.54am) shows the “duplicity” of leave campaigners. In a statement released by the anti-Brexit group Best for Britain, Farron said:
This shows the duplicity of Leave campaigners.
Only last week Michael Gove told the National Farmers’ Union that farmers would be protected by tariffs after Brexit.
Now it’s clear that the US won’t allow that in a trade deal and wants to flood us with chlorine-washed chicken and hormone-pumped beef.
But the British people won’t be force-fed low quality products or a bad Brexit deal. That’s why we need a public vote.
Updated
Labour says Grayling should be sacked for 'serial failure and routine incompetence'
Labour is calling for Chris Grayling’s resignation in the light of the government’s £33m settlement in the Eurotunnel case. Andy McDonald, the shadow transport secretary, said:
On the same day a National Audit Office report highlights that disastrous decisions by Chris Grayling at the Ministry of Justice have wasted nearly half a billion pounds of public money we also learn that the transport secretary’s misjudgement over the award of a ferry contract has left taxpayer’s liable for £33m in compensation to Eurotunnel.
This follows a damning public accounts committee report on Wednesday on his mismanagement of the railways.
His conduct as a minister is one of serial failure and routine incompetence. In any other sphere of life he would have been sacked long ago. I say yet again: this trail of destruction has gone on long enough. It’s time for Chris Grayling to go.
Here is my colleague Lisa O’Carroll’s story on the government settlement with Eurotunnel. (See 10.43am.)
And here is how it starts.
The government has settled a high court case over the Brexit ferry fiasco, after reaching an agreement worth up to £33m with Eurotunnel which was suing it following the award of a contract to a company with no ships.
The transport secretary, Chris Grayling, said in a statement: “The agreement with Eurotunnel secures the government’s additional freight capacity, helping ensure that the NHS has essential medicines in the event of a no-deal Brexit.”
Eurotunnel was suing after Grayling awarded a contract for a ferry service to Seaborne Freight from the disused port of Ramsgate. Two other companies, DFDS and Brittany Ferries, were awarded contracts worth £108m.
Washington says any UK-US trade deal should remove barriers to US farm goods being sold in UK
Washington has confirmed that it wants any UK-US trade deal to remove any barriers to American agricultural produce being sold in Britain. The Office of the US trade representative, Robert Lighthizer, has set out the demand in a 15-page paper (pdf) setting out the Trump administration’s negotiating objectives for a trade deal.
Agriculture is likely to be a flashpoint because the prospect of chlorine-washed chicken (allowed in the US, but banned in the EU) arriving on British shelves has already triggered considerable controversy. It is unusual for a trade policy issue to resonate with the media in the way the chlorinated chicken row has. But in practice it is just one of many areas where differences between US agricultural standards and EU standards could lead to the UK having to make uncomfortable compromises if it wants a trade deal with Washington.
The objectives included in the US paper include:
Secure comprehensive market access for US agricultural goods in the UK by reducing or eliminating tariffs
and
Establish a mechanism to remove expeditiously unwarranted barriers that block the export of US food and agricultural products in order to obtain more open, equitable, and reciprocal market access.
My colleague Lisa O’Carroll has the full story here.
Government settles legal dispute with Eurotunnel with settlement worth up to £33m
The Press Association has snapped this.
Eurotunnel has withdrawn its legal claim against the Department for Transport over post-Brexit ferry contracts after reaching an agreement worth up to £33m, the government said today.
Raab accuses EU of being 'dishonourable' in its handling of Brexit talks
In his Today interview Dominic Raab, the former Brexit secretary, also accused the EU of being “dishonourable” in its handling of the Brexit negotiations and of trying to “bully” the UK.
Referring to George Eustice’s resignation letter yesterday, in which Eustice said “I do not believe that the commission has behaved honourably during these negotiations”, Raab said:
George Eustice referred to, frankly, the dishonourable way that they have tried to bully us and shove us around, and it is time for us to stand up and show some mettle, as a government and as a country ...
It is very clear that they have used the Northern Ireland protocol and backstop as a means of trying to press on the sensitive issue of Northern Ireland, with all the sensitivities around that, in order effectively to try and lock us into a range of their laws, really just to undercut our competitiveness ...
I think trying to use Northern Ireland, given the history of that conflict, given the secessionist tendencies in other European countries, in order to put pressure on us in the way that they have, no, I don’t think that’s right. And, frankly, I don’t think it’s right from the point of view of European unity and solidarity.
In response, the SNP MP Joanna Cherry said Raab’s accusation was “disgraceful”.
Dominic Raab’s disgraceful comments & ill informed comments on #backstop on @BBCr4today are indicative of a mindset that cannot understand why #EU won’t throw #Ireland under the bus because that’s what his ilk have done for 800 years #Brexit 🇮🇪
— Joanna Cherry QC MP (@joannaccherry) March 1, 2019
And here is an assessment from Anand Menon, director of the UK in a Changing Europe academic project. He thinks Raab is wrong about the EU’s motives.
So here’s the thing. Raab claims the NI issue has been used by the EU to trap us in a CU and EU rules to give them a comparative advantage. But member states hate the backstop because they fear it might give us such an advantage @BBCr4today
— Anand Menon (@anandMenon1) March 1, 2019
Updated
May faces further backlash over decision to give MPs vote on extending article 50
On Tuesday night, when just 20 Tory Brexiters voted against the amendment backing the plan to allow MPs a possible vote on extending article 50 (although dozens more abstained), it looked as though the Conservative rebellion against Theresa May’s plan had been contained. But then, yesterday, George Eustice resigned as fisheries minister because he could not support the move he had voted for less than 24 hours earlier. And this morning there is evidence that the backlash against May’s decision to agree a possible vote to extend article 50 is growing. On the Today programme Dominic Raab, the former Brexit secretary (he resigned in November because he opposed the PM’s deal) and one of the many Tories interested in succeeding her as leader, said that he was “strongly against” delaying Brexit and that talking about an article 50 extension sent the “wrong message” to Brussels.
Raab, who did not vote in the division on Tuesday on the article 50 extension amendment, explained:
Now we need to stand firm. And I think the point of George Eustice’s resignation ... is that suggesting to the EU that we might delay Brexit, or take no deal off the table, weakens the negotiating leverage in delivering the very aims that the government has set out. And that is what I think is so frustrating ...
The issue with delay is at this point in time it weakens our leverage - why would the EU make concessions now? The chances of a deal get that bit slimmer because they are less likely to compromise ...
If we have a delay ... the question is what are the challenges that we face now that will get easier after that. I think all our of problems get more difficult. So I’m strongly against any delay, and I think from the EU’s point of view it signals to them that actually their intransigence pays off, and that’s the wrong message for the UK to be sending to Brussels at this moment.
When asked if he thought a no-deal Brexit would be better than delay, he replied “absolutely” - echoing the line adopted yesterday by Boris Johnson, the former foreign secretary (who also resigned because he was opposed to May’s Brexit plan, but four months ahead of Raab).
I will post more from the Raab interview shortly.
The Commons is not sitting today and the political diary looks fairly empty. But I’m sure we’ll find something. 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, but I expect to be focusing mostly on Brexit. I plan to post a summary when I wrap up, probably mid afternoon.
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
