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

May set to reject calls for free vote on amendment designed to block no-deal Brexit – as it happened

Steve Bray, an anti-Brexit campaigner, outside Number 10 today.
Steve Bray, an anti-Brexit campaigner, outside Number 10 today. Photograph: Andy Rain/EPA

Afternoon summary

  • Theresa May is set to reject Tory calls for her to give her ministers and MPs a free vote on an amendment to the Brexit motion being debated next week intended to stop the UK leaving the EU without a deal, government sources have indicated. (See 12.41pm.) This came as Labour’s Jack Dromey and the Conservative Caroline Spelman tabled a new joint amendment saying the no-deal option should be rejected (see 2.45pm), and the Tory MP Andrew Murrison tabled an amendment demanding an end date to the backstop. (See 3.17pm.)

That’s all from me for today.

Thanks for the comments.

This is from the SNP MP Tommy Sheppard.

No-deal Brexit would cause 'serious and unavoidable harm' to NHS in Wales, Welsh assembly told

The Welsh assembly schedule has been largely cleared to give ministers time to spell out preparations they are making for a no-deal Brexit. Ministers are outlining the risks of a no deal on health, the economy, transport and farming.

The Labour first minister Mark Drakeford said:

In a series of statements ministers will outline the risks we face – for public services, the economy and across society. The impacts are potentially far ranging and will be felt by everyone. These are not theoretical or hypothetical concerns but the reality of where we now find ourselves. Today’s series of statements is part of our determination to ensure that assembly members are kept updated on this work.

The truth is that no one really knows what will happen in the event of a no-deal Brexit. It follows that neither Wales nor the UK as a whole can be truly prepared for all the possible eventualities.

Vaughan Gething, minister for health and social services, was first up. He said:

I continue to be concerned about the future supply of radioisotopes to Wales in the event of a no deal scenario. Radioisotopes are essential for diagnostic and therapeutic use by our NHS. There are no sources in the UK and supplies are routinely imported from other EU countries through the main cross-channel ports. Disruption from customs checks at our ports is likely to render radioisotopes useless for healthcare treatment.

A no deal Brexit will have a profound impact on all professions and all health and social care staff. The effects of changes to migration policy, particular a policy which favours high skills and wages, will be most keenly felt in those parts of the health and social care sector which depend on lower-paid workers, such as workers providing domiciliary or residential care, who have essential roles supporting some of the most vulnerable people in our society. Let us be clear, disruption in our social care sector would inevitably lead to delayed discharges and increased pressures on our hospitals.

The Welsh government has been clear that a no-deal Brexit would cause serious and unavoidable harm to our health and care services. That harm would extend to all sectors, including at least 1,400 EU nationals known to working in our NHS.

Vaughan Gething.
Vaughan Gething. Photograph: Dimitris Legakis/Athena Pictures

Updated

Here is the Labour MP Virendra Sharma on the news that the Tory MP Daniel Kawczynski is asking the Polish government to intervene in the Brexit process (see 3.40pm and 3.43pm), in a statement released by the anti-Brexit group, Best for Britain.

It appears that Kawczynski has today appointed himself as roving Ambassador to Poland. I am sure Warsaw has been waiting for his letter with bated breath.

I don’t envy Daniel’s burden of self-awareness. Taking back control by asking a foreign government to veto a request made by the sovereign British Parliament is an interesting move.

And here is Euronews’ Darren McCaffrey on the same story.

This is from Kevin Doyle, from the Independent in Ireland.

Verhofstadt says article 50 could be extended beyond summer, despite MEPs' reservations

Guy Verhofstadt has opened the door to Brexit negotiations extending into the next session of the next European parliament.

The Liberal MEP, who is the European parliament’s pointman on Brexit, said it would be more difficult to prolong article 50 beyond the 2 July, the first day of the new European parliament. However, he did not rule out an extension beyond the summer, as he has done on previous occasions. “Certainly I think this is only possible in the case the UK can indicate for how long and what for,” he said, while adding that with no clear plan “to break the deadlock seems to me very difficult to do”.

Commenting in detail on specific amendments in the House of Commons, Verhofstadt said MEPs needed to monitor closely developments at Westminster. But he ruled out any changes to the withdrawal agreement, including the backstop, saying:

There are limits on what we can accept. For us the backstop is non-negotiable.

The EU could consider changes to the non-binding political declaration that maps out the future, he said.

We are open for a deeper and more closer relationship than the relationship that is in the political declaration.

Verhofstadt was speaking to MEPs on the European parliament’s constitutional affairs committee, who are responsible for scrutinising the withdrawal agreement. The committee chair Danuta Hübner said that work would begin next week, despite uncertainty over whether Westminster will ratify the deal.

If the UK remained a member state at the time of European elections in May, the UK had “the duty to organise European elections in line with the treaty and the electoral act,” said Hübner. “Any failure on this will mean a breach of the treaties and can be brought to the courts, of course.”

But other MEPs objected to suggestions that the UK could gain an extension, an indication of the pressure facing EU leaders who would ultimately agree any extension of talks.

Veteran French MEP Alain Lamassoure said the EU needed to put its foot down on extension. He said:

Let me tell you this. If we accept this idea of extending the deadline without any serious political grounds for it and extend it beyond June 30, it will be the European Union that will pay the price, because we are never going to get out of that muddle.

Guy Verhofstadt
Guy Verhofstadt Photograph: Francisco Seco/AP

Updated

Mark Drakeford, the Welsh first minister, has dismissed Theresa May’s Brexit ‘plan B’ as just ‘plan A’ with “a new helping of pious hopes”, the Western Mail’s David Williamson reports.

According to Jakub Krupa, the Polish government will reject the Conservative MP Daniel Kawczynski’s call for it to veto any extension of article 50. (See 3.40pm.)

The Brexiter Tory Daniel Kawczynski, who was born in Poland, says he has asked the Polish government to veto an extension of article 50. Poland could decide the matter because, for article 50 to be extended, the UK would have to make that request, and the EU27 would have to agree the move unanimously.

Nick Gutteridge, the Sun’s Brussels reports, thinks Kawczynski’s idea is a non-starter.

According to the Sun’s Steve Hawkes, the Conservative MP Phillip Lee is going to table an amendment calling for a second referendum. Lee is planning this with his fellow Tory Brexit-sceptic, Sarah Wollaston. They are both doctors, and they have described this as an “informed consent” amendment - based on the idea that Brexit is such an extreme measure that it should only go ahead with the “informed consent” of the electorate (ie, that people should vote on the Brexit deal on the table, not just the principle, as they did in 2016).

The Hawkes tweet refers to reports that the People’s Vote campaign (PV) have been trying to get Lee to delay, on the grounds that they don’t want MPs to vote on a second referendum until the Labour party is committed to supporting the idea.

Here is the BBC’s Laura Kuenssberg on the Dromey/Spelman amendment. (See 2.45pm.)

Tory MP offers No 10 potential lifeline with move to allow Commons to demand expiry date to backstop

The Conservative MP Andrew Murrison has confirmed that he has retabled his amendment demanding an end date to the backstop.

According to the Spectator (see 2.08pm), Jeremy Hunt, the foreign secretary, told cabinet that this was exactly the sort of intervention the government needed. That is because, if MPs were to pass the Murrison amendment by a decent majority, Theresa May would be able to go back to Brussels citing this as proof that, with an expiry date added, her deal would be able to get through the Commons.

But there is no guarantee that the Murrison amendment will be put to a vote. He tabled a similar amendment ahead of the big Brexit debate on Tuesday last week, but it was not called by the speaker, John Bercow.

Updated

Dromey and Spelman seek to maximise support behind new no-deal amendment

The Labour MP Jack Dromey and the Conservative MP Caroline Spelman have announced that they have tabled a joint amendment to the Brexit motion for Tuesday next week ruling out a no-deal Brexit.

It is the shortest and simplest of all the amendments that have been tabled so far.

The main government motion says:

That this House, in accordance with the provisions of section 13(6)(a) of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, has considered the written statement titled “statement under section 13(4) of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018” and made on 21 January 2019.

And this is what the Dromey/Spelman amendment says:

At end add “and rejects the United Kingdom leaving the European Union without a withdrawal agreement and a framework for the future relationship”.

Already six amendments to the government motion are on the order paper (pdf). Now we are up to seven. We don’t know yet how many will be called on Tuesday, but some of them will get ignored, and the amendments with most chance of success will be those with wide support across the Commons.

The advantage this one has is that it would be easy for Conservative MPs to support. It does not involve any of the procedural innovation that features in amendments like Dominic Grieve’s. (See 10.58am.) And Spelman, who does not have form as an anti-Brexit Tory rebel, is probably a less divisive figure amongst her party colleagues than Grieve.

But the disadvantage with the amendment is that it is relatively innocuous. It would not be binding and, if passed, it would not necessarily stop the government taking the UK out of the EU without a deal.

Dromey and Spelman both represents West Midlands constituencies where thousands of their constituents either work at the local Jaguar Land Rover factories or for their suppliers.

In a joint statement, Dromey and Spelman said:

We must rule out the prospect of a no-deal Brexit. As 29th March fast approaches, it becomes increasingly clear that crashing out of the EU without a deal will cause chaos and put the jobs of thousands of our constituents at risk.

We are confident that there is widespread agreement across all parties in the House that a no-deal Brexit should be avoided. This amendment seeks to send that clear message: no to no deal.

Whilst we remain committed to honouring the result of the referendum, for the sake of the people we represent, we cannot sanction crashing out of the EU without a deal.

Workers at the Jaguar Land Rover factory in Solihull.
Workers at the Jaguar Land Rover factory in Solihull. Photograph: Leon Neal/Getty Images

Anti-Brexit campaigners outside the Commons today.
Anti-Brexit campaigners outside the Commons today. Photograph: Andy Rain/EPA

The Spectator’s James Forsyth has written a good blog about what happened at today’s cabinet. The Brexit discussion was calmer than some people expected, he says. Here’s an extract.

Perhaps, the two most interesting contributions came from Jeremy Hunt and David Gauke. Gauke questioned the government’s new approach. He said he was worried that even if the government did get something on the backstop, there still wouldn’t be enough Tory MPs backing the deal for it to pass. While Hunt argued that the best thing for the government to do was to get parliamentary support for a plan on time-limiting the backstop. Having done that, the Foreign Secretary argued, the UK should go back to the EU and say, this is what can pass parliament.

On the basis of this account, Jeremy Hunt seems to be hoping for a new version of the Andrew Murrison amendment to be tabled for the debate next Tuesday. There is nothing like that on the order paper yet, but MPs have until Monday night to table amendments.

Jeremy Hunt leaving Number 10 after cabinet today.
Jeremy Hunt leaving Number 10 after cabinet today. Photograph: Jack Taylor/Getty Images

Here is the Labour MP Tulip Siddiq tweeting about the proxy voting announcement that she helped to trigger.

Commons to vote next Monday on introducing proxy voting for MPs on maternity leave, Leadsom says

In the Commons Andrea Leadsom, the leader of the Commons, is responding to an urgent question on proxy voting in the chamber for MPs on maternity leave. In recent days, prompted by the Tulip Siddiq case, John Bercow, the speaker, has repeatedly complained about the government’s failure to go ahead and introduce proxy voting, despite MPs backing the idea in principle around a year ago.

Leadsom says she profoundly believes that new parents should be able to spend time with their new babies. She says she can now announce that MPs will vote to introduce a proxy voting scheme on Monday next week (28 January).

The motion (which is almost certain to be passed, perhaps even without opposition), will implement a one-year proxy voting pilot, based on proposals in a procedure committee report.

Updated

The Brexit and Public Opinion 2019 report (pdf) from the UK in a Changing Europe project mentioned earlier (see 10.52am and 12.14am) also includes an essay from the leading psephologist Sir John Curtice looking at whether voters really want a second referendum. He says the answer depends enormously on how you frame the question. If you ask people if they favour the public being offered a “vote” on the deal, they are likely to say yes, whereas if you ask them if they favour a “referendum”, they are likely to say no. Suggesting that remaining in the EU would be an option also seems to make the prospect more unpopular, Curtice says.

Here is his conclusion:

It seems that some leave voters, at least, begin to warm to the idea of another ballot when it is implied that its purpose would be to enable voters (like themselves) to decide the fate of the Brexit deal that the government has negotiated. However, this support largely disappears when it is made clear it might result in a reversal of the decision to leave the EU.

Any claims that the polls show a widespread clamour for a second referendum have to be treated with care. The proposal is one that, so far at least, appeals much more strongly to the half of the country that would like to see Brexit reversed than it does to those who support Brexit. True, there are signs that perhaps some Leave supporters could be persuaded to support another ballot - if it were to be portrayed as a chance for voters to decide the fate of the government’s Brexit deal. But unless that were to happen, it would seem unlikely that holding any such ballot would succeed in healing the division and polarisation that has come to characterise the Brexit debate.

Theresa May is holding a conference call this afternoon with business leaders including representatives of the CBI, Federation of Small Businesses and Institute of Directors, the Press Association reports. May’s spokesman told journalists at the lobby briefing that the call was an opportunity for the prime minister to provide an update on the state of Brexit talks and for business leaders to raise any concerns they might have. Later in the week, May is due to meet trade union leaders, including Unite general secretary Len McCluskey, in Downing Street to discuss Brexit. The spokesman did not confirm the date of the meeting. But it is expected to take place on Thursday (not today, as I wrongly said earlier).

Updated

May set to reject calls for free vote on amendment designed to block no-deal Brexit

Government sources are saying they would be “very surprised” if Theresa May allows a free vote on the amendment intended to rule out a no-deal Brexit. (See 9.26am.)

Grieve explains how his amendment would work

This is how Dominic Grieve, the Tory pro-European, explained what his amendment to next week’s Brexit motion (see 10.58am) would achieve on Sky News.

What my amendment does is to identify a number of Tuesdays between now and the date of Brexit in which the business will be controlled by the House itself and not by the government.

There will be a motion in neutral terms to start the day which is about looking at Brexit and what is going on, then members of parliament can table amendments for consideration which can be turned into resolutions of the House.

A resolution of the House is a pretty solemn thing. If the House says that it thinks something ought to be done which the government isn’t doing, the government can decide to ignore it but historically it would be very unusual in our constitution for that to happen.

No-deal Brexit will lead to hard border in Ireland, says EU

At his briefing in Brussels, as well as quoting the Spice Girls to make the point that the EU does not know what the UK wants on Brexit (see 11.53am), Margaritis Schinas, the European commission spokesman, also said that a no-deal Brexit would lead to the return of a hard border between Ireland and Northern Ireland. He said:

If you like to push me and speculate on what might happen in a no-deal scenario in Ireland, I think it’s pretty obvious, you will have a hard border.

Our commitment to the Good Friday agreement and everything that we have been doing for years with our tools, instruments and programmes will have to take inevitably into account this fact.

So, of course, we are for peace, of course we stand behind the Good Friday agreement, but that’s what a no-deal scenario would entail.

According to the Sun’s Nick Gutteridge, that is the first time the commission has been this explicit.

At the People’s Vote press conference this morning the Labour MPs David Lammy and Bridget Phillipson welcomed the Labour amendment saying MPs should have a vote on whether to hold a second referendum. They argued that it was a move towards such a vote happening.

Lammy said:

It is clear that to achieve a public vote, all opposition parties would have to be aligned and the Labour party, as the official opposition, needs to be in a place where it is advocating for a people’s vote.

It is absolutely legitimate to work through the options - and the amendment sets out those options - before you arrive at the place on a people’s vote.

Ultimately, I think that we have to end up in a place where we put this to a public vote. That is the nature of the amendment Labour has put down.

And Phillipson said:

I know that Jeremy [Corbyn] wants to make sure the decisions that we take as a party are the decisions that are in the best interests of everyone we serve.

But I don’t think the interests of working people will be served by a Brexit which will see jobs leave my community, which will see wages fall and see a real impact on living standards. I think when it comes down to it, Jeremy won’t want to see that happen either.

I think Jeremy understands that a majority of Labour voters and a vast majority of Labour members want us to campaign for a referendum. I think he is a democrat and he will ultimately respond to that.

The People’s Vote press conference this morning: (left to right) Lib Dem MP Jo Swinson, Labour s David Lammy, the Green MP Caroline Lucas and Labour’s Bridget Philipson
The People’s Vote press conference this morning: (left to right) Lib Dem MP Jo Swinson, Labour s David Lammy, the Green MP Caroline Lucas and Labour’s Bridget Philipson Photograph: Andy Rain/EPA

MPs much more worried about no-deal Brexit than voters generally, research finds

The Brexit and Public Opinion 2019 report (pdf) from the UK in a Changing Europe project mentioned earlier (see 10.52am) also has a fascinating essay by Rob Ford and Alan Wager about what people and MPs think about a no deal Brexit. Here are the key points.

  • MPs generally are much more worried about a no-deal Brexit having a negative impact than voters generally, the research finds. This is what Ford and Wager say:

MPs and voters share roughly the same hierarchy of concerns about Brexit – worrying most about lorry queues and a fall in sterling, and least about flight cancellations and house price declines. However, in every case MPs express greater overall concern than voters. It seems the public is more complacent about no deal than the policymakers whose choices will determine whether it happens.

And this chart illustrates the gap.

What MPs and voters think about no-deal Brexit
What MPs and voters think about no-deal Brexit Photograph: UK in a Changing Europe

To compare what MPs generally fear, and what members of the public generally fear, you need to compare the positions of the yellow dots and the red dots.

  • Leave-supporting MPs are much less likely to worry about the negative impact of a no-deal Brexit than leave-supporting voters - or anyone else, the research finds. Remain-supporting voters are more likely to worry about a no-deal Brexit than leave-supporting voters. (Look at the gap between the black and the blue dots.) But the views of MPs are much more polarised, with remain-supporting MPs particularly worried and leave-supporting MPs particularly unworried. (Look at the gap between the green dots and the purple dots.) Ford and Wager say:

Concerns about most forms of no deal disruption are very widespread among remain MPs, while only a minority of leave MPs express any, while virtually none worry about the impact on medical supplies, flights or house prices.

  • Only around 4% of people think a no-deal Brexit would involve the UK remaining in the EU, the research finds. Ford and Wager explain:

It is worth starting with what the public very clearly knows to be true. Despite claims to the contary, there is no polling evidence to suggest that any significant section of the population think a no deal Brexit would mean that the UK would remain in the EU. Just 4% think that no deal means a reversion to the status quo ante. Only 8% think that ‘nothing important would really change’ if the UK left the EU without a deal. While leave voters are three times more likely to think this – 12% versus 4% – the idea that no deal would not be an event with consequences, for good or bad, is not widely held.

EU says it has heard 'nothing new' on Brexit from London

In Brussels the European commission spokesman, Margaritis Schinas, has got so frustrated waiting for the UK to come up with a Brexit position that he has taken to quoting the Spice Girls, the BBC’s Adam Fleming reports.

Brexit will cost the civil service £74m a year in turnover of staff and endangers the progress of at least 26 projects designed to improve live in the UK, including the HS2 rail line, a new report claims.

A research paper by the Institute for Government reports that numbers in the civil service have now risen to levels not seen since the second world war, yet a hung parliament coupled with Brexit “have constrained the government’s ability to pass legislation”.

Only five of the 13 bills which the government has said it needs to pass ahead of Brexit have made it through parliament, it finds.

Earlier I included a Newsnight tweet quoting Nadine Dorries, the Tory backbencher, saying she and fellow Brexiters were coming around to the idea of voting for Theresa May’s deal because they feared pro-Europeans might block Brexit. (See 9.26am.) She said:

I can feel a growing consensus among a number of MPs — faced with these Europhile kamakaze MPs, who really don’t care about their careers going up in flames, who want to overturn parliamentary tradition in order to stop Brexit — I think many people are now realising that we would support this deal to get it over the line. Because every day here is a dangerous day at the moment. We may have to see that this is a deal, we will have to swallow our pride, swallow what we would prefer, and vote for it.

Dorries is now saying that she was quoted out of context and that she was only talking about backing May’s deal if the Irish backstop were removed.

UPDATE: This is from the Newsnight editor Esme Wren.

Updated

Article 50 extension 'inevitable', while second referendum 'unlikely', says Grieve

Dominic Grieve, the Conservative pro-European who has tabled an amendment to next week’s motion intended to ensure that MPs get a greater say over Brexit (see 10.58am) told Sky’s All Out Politics that he thought article 50 would have to be extended. He said:

Article 50 is going to have to be extended. Even if the prime minister got her deal through parliament next week, it is inconceivable that we could do the necessary enabling legislation for us to leave on 29 March.

He also reaffirmed his desire to halt Brexit, saying:

Despite two and a half years of trying to see a silver lining to this particular cloud, I think Brexit remains the biggest historic mistake the United Kingdom has made in it modern peacetime history. I think it is going to have very bad consequences for us.

But MPs could not just ignore the referendum result, he went on. That was why he favoured a second referendum, he said.

However, he also admitted that a second referendum was “unlikely” to happen unless there was a government in power that was in favour of holding one.

Dominic Grieve
Dominic Grieve Photograph: Sky News

Updated

Len McCluskey, the Unite general secretary and one of Jeremy Corbyn’s closest allies, will visit Number 10 for talks with Theresa May about Brexit, Channel 4 News’s Gary Gibbon reports.

CORRECTION: The original post said this was happening today, but the meeting is due to happen on Thursday.

Updated

Jo Swinson, the deputy Lib Dem leader, told the People’s Vote press conference this morning that Jeremy Corbyn had shown “a dreadful lack of leadership” over Brexit, because Labour was “riding both horses” on a second referendum. (See 9.26am.) She said:

Labour is at a point now where it has to choose. The Labour leadership has been riding both horses for far too long.

Labour can decide. Their votes will be pivotal. They can either make Brexit happen or Labour can stop Brexit. The time for decision is upon us.

Germany’s justice minister, Katarina Barley, who is both a German and British citizen, and is also the Social Democrats’ main candidate for the EU elections, told German radio (Deutschlandfunk) this morning, she is in favour of a second referendum, accusing Theresa May of presenting a Plan B that is hardly worth the paper it’s written on and arguing her main aim at this stage is “to play for time, but that in so doing she’s also playing with fire.”

May’s whole Brexit strategy “will go up in a puff of smoke if she continues in this vein, and right now that very much looks like the way things are going,” she said.

Updated

Grieve tables amendment for MPs to get time to debate Brexit, dropping most controversial element of plan

The former attorney general Dominic Grieve has put forward his motion to allow backbenchers to table different Brexit motions for debate six full days before the UK leaves the EU – 12 and 26 February and 5, 12, 19 and 26 March. You can read it on the order paper (pdf), on page 51.

That would give MPs time in the House of Commons to debate ideas such as a customs union, Labour’s own Brexit plan, a second referendum, no deal and the Norway model. Motions would be amendable and would have political force.

Grieve has removed the most controversial aspect of his amendment from one of the leaked drafts, which would have allowed a motion put forward by a minority of 300 MPs from at least five parties – including 10 Tory MPs – to be debated as the first item for MPs in the Commons the next day.

Instead, the motion now just allocates specific days for debate - and the dates have been chosen carefully so they will not clash with the days specified by Labour MP Yvette Cooper and the Tory Nick Boles who are making a separate attempt to pass a bill which would mandate an article 50 extension in the event of no deal.

Grieve said his amendment was aimed at facilitating wider debate in the Commons on different options for Brexit, similar to a plan for “indicative votes” that has been floated by several cabinet ministers, such as like the business secretary, Greg Clark, and the education secretary, Damian Hinds.

The six days specified by Grieve could in theory be used to pass primary legislation - but Grieve said that would be difficult in practice and he did not envisage that would happen.

Any bill that required government spending like calling a new referendum would need a “money resolution” which needs government backing. Grieve told the Guardian he thought that was a constitutional change too far.

Identification with remain/leave much stronger than identification with a political party, research finds

If you are interested in Brexit, there is a huge amount of quite interesting analysis in the Brexit and Public Opinion 2019 report (pdf) out today from the UK in a Changing Europe project. It contains 22 short essays by academics and other experts.

One, by Geoff Evans and Florian Schaffner, says that whereas in the past people used to identify themselves politically according to the party they supported, now they are far more likely to identify themselves by where they stand on Brexit. Here is an extract.

The number of both remainers and leavers expressing a Brexit identity grew markedly following the referendum result. After then it has been almost neck-and-neck, with just under 50% identifying with each side but with a slight lead for remain.

Tellingly, even in mid-2018, two years after the referendum, only just over 6% of people did not identify with either leave or remain.

Compare this with party attachment. The percentage with no party identity increased from 18% to 21.5% over same period – in part due to the decline of UKIP. Only one in 16 people don’t have a Brexit identity whereas more than one in five have no party identity ...

The EU referendum seems to have resulted in a classic in-group versus out-group response, especially from remainers. The social and emotional intensity of these Brexit identities – held by almost everybody – is far higher than those for parties. The latter increased a little during the 2017 general election, especially for Labour, but then subsided. A Brexit identity remained prevalent and consequential even two years after the referendum itself. We are a long way removed from the idea that Britain ‘has come together’ to face the challenge of Brexit. Social polarisation is pronounced and shows no sign of diminishing.

This has big consequences for party politics. In a recent speech in Wakefield Jeremy Corbyn argued that “the real divide in our country is not between those who voted to remain in the EU and those who voted to leave” but between the many and the few. He may well be right, but this research suggests that that is not the way people feel at the moment.

Record numbers of people are in work and job vacancies are at their joint highest level since 2001, the Press Association says. In its report on today’s unemployment figures, it goes on:

Average earnings increased by 3.4% in the year to November, the highest for a decade, outpacing inflation.

Employment increased by 141,000 in the three months to November to 32.5m, the highest since records began in 1971.

Unemployment also increased, up by 8,000 to 1.37m, although the total is 68,000 lower than a year ago, said the Office for National Statistics (ONS).

The UK’s jobless rate is now 4%, down by 0.2% on a year ago, and the lowest since 1975.

The ONS said average weekly earnings, adjusted for price inflation, increased by 1.2%, including bonuses, compared with a year earlier.

The increase in both unemployment and employment is explained by the UK’s rising population, and fewer people classed as economically inactive, which includes those on long-term sick leave, students, and people who have given up looking for a job.

The number of economically inactive people fell by 100,000 in the latest quarter to 8.6 million, a rate of 21%, the lowest on record.

Austrian foreign minister says there is no time to renegotiate withdrawal agreement before Brexit

Karin Kneissl, the Austrian foreign minister, told the Today programme this morning that the Polish plan for the backstop to be limited to five years did not have general EU support. She explained:

We were all taken by surprise when the Polish minister made his statement.

We have had cohesion and we wish to continue having cohesion on the EU27 position, so the statement by our Polish colleague came as a surprise, but I don’t believe that it will cause some sort of breakthrough, certainly not because if we start having all kinds of bilateral suggestions it doesn’t lead us anywhere.

She also said that she did not think there was time to renegotiate the withdrawal agreement before Brexit. She said:

The withdrawal agreement was negotiated along the red lines the British government have put. We respected always these red lines and I don’t believe that things that couldn’t be achieved over the past three years can be achieved now within the context of a few weeks.

Austrian foreign minister Karin Kneissl
Austrian foreign minister Karin Kneissl Photograph: Ronald Zak/AP

Updated

The BBC’s Norman Smith has got what could be some very bad news for parliamentary journalists.

May under pressure to allow ministers free vote on amendment to block no-deal Brexit

Good morning. MPs will vote a week today on Brexit, and potentially on a whole range of alternative options. You can read the amendments that have already been tabled on the order paper (pdf), starting on page 48.

Here is a summary of the overnight and early morning Brexit developments.

  • Theresa May is under pressure to allow ministers a free vote on an amendment intended to rule out a no-deal Brexit, after the Times (paywall) claims that up to 40 members of the government would resign if ordered to vote against it. Sam Coates in the Times reports:

Up to 40 members of the government will resign next week if Conservative MPs are banned from voting for a plan to stop a no-deal Brexit, No 10 has been told.

Amber Rudd, the work and pensions secretary, has demanded that all Tory MPs are allowed a free vote on plans that would clear the path for extending Article 50 — the mechanism by which Britain leaves the European Union.

The amendment is very specifically-worded to allow for the debate of the options.

It is not stating that the party supports a second referendum in any way and indeed if it was passed, the amendment, and it went to a vote on the specific issues, then that would be a decision for the party to take at the time.

We are prioritising seeking a deal which provides many of the assurances we have sought from the PM.

  • Stephen Barclay, the Brexit secretary, has said it is not inevitable that the EU would grant an extension of article 50 if the UK requested one. He told the Today programme:

It is not in the unilateral gift of the UK to extend. There are practical issues. I think that [support for an extension] is an over-simplification because there are many in the European parliament and elsewhere that are concerned about an extension in terms of the impact.

There are many in Brussels that are concerned about the prospect of an extension in terms of the interplay with the European parliamentary elections, because you couldn’t pass the legislation in the UK for a referendum ... in the time before the end of May.

But also from the EU point of view, they have been very clear that they don’t want an extension with no purpose and so we come back to the issue as to what it is MPs are for and just what they are against.

  • Iain Duncan Smith, the Tory Brexiter and former party leader, has said that an amendment intended to allow backbenchers to take control of the parliamentary agenda and pass legislation ruling out a no-deal Brexit, would create “mayhem”. He told Today:

I have a very simple formula for this, which is if you really support this constitutional nonsense of allowing a backbench group to take over the business and run legislation at the government, if the Labour party agrees to support that they have to think carefully what would happen if they were in power and they did not have a massive majority.

This opens the door to mayhem in the Commons and I promise you those who think that the House of Commons could act as a government negotiating a trade deal are living in cloud cuckoo land.

He also said allow ministers a free vote on this amendment would be unacceptable.

The government has to have a position on something as fundamental as what their plan is for the future. The prime minister was very clear yesterday and there is collective responsibility in cabinet and among ministers - they have agreed there will be no extension of article 50, there will be no revocation of Article 50 and no customs union.

  • Nadine Dorries, the Tory Brexiter and until recently a strong critic of May’s deal, has said that Brexiters are increasingly inclined to vote for it now because they fear “Europhile kamikaze MPs” could halt Brexit. She said this in an interview last night for Newsnight.

Here is the agenda for the day.

9am: Sir John Curtice, the psephologist, is among the speakers at a UK in a Changing Europe conference on Brexit and public opinion. It coincides with the publication of a new report on the subject.

9.30am: Theresa May chairs cabinet.

9.30am: Unemployment figures are published.

9.45am: The MPs David Lammy, Caroline Lucas, Jo Swinson and Bridget Phillipson speak at a People’s Vote press conference. They are publishing a report (pdf) arguing there are flaws with alternative Brexit options to a second referendum. My colleague Dan Sabbagh has a preview here.

10.30am: The prominent Tory pro-European Anna Soubry takes part in a Mumsnet webchat.

11.30am: Jeremy Hunt, the foreign secretary, takes questions in the Commons.

11.30am: Michael Gove, the environment secretary, gives evidence to a Lords committee on the rural economy.

12pm: Sir Mark Sedwill, the cabinet secretary, speaks at the publication of the Institute for Government’s annual Whitehall Monitor report.

2.30pm: Sajid Javid, the home secretary, gives evidence to a Lords committee about citizens’ rights after Brexit.

3.30pm: Gavin Williamson, the defence secretary, gives evidence to the Commons defence committee.

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 at lunchtime and another when I wrap up, at around 4.30pm.

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
Four reasons why the new DC cinematic universe may fail (again)
Marvel and DC have been captivating the world with their superheroes and supervillains for almost a century. Characters like Spider-Man (Marvel) and Superman (DC) are global household names whose recognition rivals that of world leaders.
The Conversation
The Conversation
William Shatner addresses cancer hoax: ‘This is the downside of AI’
The 95-year old called out a Facebook group he claims is using artificial intelligence to create ‘horrible fake news stories’ about him.
Evening Standard
Evening Standard
Gary Numan says David Bowie had him thrown off set
Gary Numan has revealed he was once kicked out of a shoot after the music icon allegedly didn’t want him in the room.
BANG Premier
BANG Premier
Blake Lively's Legal Strategy in Focus After Judge Cuts 10 Claims in Justin Baldoni Battle
Judge dismisses most claims in Blake Lively's case against Justin Baldoni, leaving breach of contract and retaliation allegations for trial.
International Business Times UK
International Business Times UK
If You Find Joy In Learning Interesting And Fun Facts, Here Are 63 That Might Surprise You
This collection dives into some of the most interesting facts shared online, from surprising truths about animals to little-known details about the human body. Each one is quick, curious, and just intriguing enough to keep you scrolling.
Bored Panda
Bored Panda
Blake Lively sees most of her claims dismissed in a lawsuit against Justin Baldoni dismissed
After a federal judge ruled that only a narrowed portion of the case will proceed to trial, Blake Lively has seen most of her claims dismissed in a lawsuit against Justin Baldoni.
BANG Premier
BANG Premier
Fourteen days free
Download the app
One app. One membership.
100+ trusted global sources.
Download on the AppStore Get it on Google Play