Afternoon summary
- Jacob Rees-Mogg, the Tory Brexiter and chair of the European Research Group, has said May should close parliament temporarily if necessary (or prorogue it, to use the technical term) to stop MPs passing a bill blocking a no-deal Brexit. (See 3.14pm.)
- Nicola Sturgeon, Scotland’s first minister, has reasserted the SNP’s right to call a referendum on Scottish independence after May used PMQs to firm up her opposition to the idea. (See 5.04pm.)
- Stephen Barclay, the Brexit secretary, has said that May’s plan is probably still the most popular of all the various Brexit options being discussed by MPs. Giving evidence to the Lords EU committee, and referring to the various Brexit options that have emerged from the cross-party talks on Brexit, and from the amendments tabled ahead of next week’s debate, he said:
The prime minister’s deal probably is the one with the most support, but clearly not sufficient support.
He also said the priority was to find changes to the backstop that would make it acceptable to MPs.
That’s all from me for today.
Thanks for the comments.
Talking of David Davis, the former Brexit secretary, the FT’s Jim Pickard points out that he has got a new job - which pays £3,000 an hour.
David Davis has just disclosed a new £60,000-a-year job at JCB, whose chairman is pro-Brexit Anthony Bamford https://t.co/awlMG6VI0H pic.twitter.com/3zzkW20tJH
— Jim Pickard (@PickardJE) January 23, 2019
These are from ITV’s Robert Peston.
My #Davos19 sources give me best story to date about the gathering of the global ruling class. Tory-of-the-people @DavidDavisMP is there, regaling business leaders with his plan to make the Northern Ireland backstop redundant, by proposing that it would be a criminal
— Robert Peston (@Peston) January 23, 2019
...offence under UK law for UK businesses to sell goods and food into the EU single market unless the goods and food met EU standards and rules. Why that would represent the UK taking back control somewhat defeated the gobsmacked assembled plutocrats - or perhaps they don't...
— Robert Peston (@Peston) January 23, 2019
...really understand what Brexit is all about
— Robert Peston (@Peston) January 23, 2019
Sir Ivan Rogers, the former British ambassador to the EU, has established himself, mostly in a series of speeches, as the most incisive critic of the government’s Brexit strategy. He delivered another last night and you can read it here (pdf). I haven’t read it myself yet (they are never short), but I’m told it is as good as all the others.
The Telegraph’s Peter Foster has posted some highlights in a Twitter thread, starting here.
Right #Brexit class of 2019.
— Peter Foster (@pmdfoster) January 22, 2019
Wake up at the back there, Sir Ivan Rogers has just delivered another 11,000 word broadside.
I have read. Some highlights. 1/thread
This is from Politico Europe’s Tom McTague. The Yvette Cooper bill intended to prevent the UK leaving the EU without a deal would oblige the PM to seek an extension of article 50 until the ned of 2019 in the event of no deal being agreed by 26 February. McTague suggests that this nine-month extension could turn into a three-month extension as the price for Labour supporting the bill.
Will the proposed nine month Brexit delay in the (Yvette) Cooper Bill survive backroom negotiations with Corbyn et al? Suggestions July 1 could become the new extension date.
— Tom McTague (@TomMcTague) January 23, 2019
The European Commission has adopted two legislative proposals to soften the impact on the EU fishing industry if there is a no-deal Brexit, the Press Association reports. The proposals provide for compensation to fishermen and operators in the case of a sudden closure of UK waters to EU boats. And they prepare the way for the EU to offer UK boats access to its waters until the end of 2019 on condition that Britain grants access to its waters for EU boats in return.
And this is from the Financial Times’ Alex Barker.
Brussels says there will be no mini-deals with Britain in a no-deal scenario. Only unilateral contingency measures allowed.
— Alex Barker (@alexebarker) January 23, 2019
Apart from fish. That's different. Negotiations with London on quota swaps are fine. Hmm... https://t.co/LrFTaKsYRS pic.twitter.com/EmtxAOeDgt
Back in the Lords committee, Barclay is saying more about the legislation that would have to be passed in the event of a no-deal Brexit.
On the issue of whether there is enough time, Barclay says “risk appetite” would be a factor taken into account. The business managers would have to take a decision.
Sturgeon reasserts SNP's right to call independence referendum after May firms up her opposition
At PMQs Theresa May firmed up her opposition to allowing Scotland to hold a second independence referendum. (To hold a proper, legally valid referendum, Edinburgh needs permission from London.) When Nicola Sturgeon, the Scottish first minister, called in 2017 for a second independence referendum, May brushed this aside with the response: “Now is not the time.”
This afternoon, in response to a question from the Scottish Conservative Stephen Kerr, May seemed to rule one out for good. She told MPs:
The last thing we want is a second independence referendum. The United Kingdom should be pulling together, and should not be being driven apart.
Sturgeon has responded firmly. In a statement issued ahead of her meeting with May at Number 10 this afternoon, she said:
Theresa May fears she would lose an independence referendum and is clearly running scared of the verdict of the Scottish people - who must be sick and tired of being told what the prime minister wants
Frankly, what Scotland needs is much more important than what the prime minister wants. On a daily basis, Brexit is illustrating this fundamental point - Scotland needs the power to take our own decisions. That’s the only way to stop Tory ideologues driving us to disaster and Westminster governments imposing polices we didn’t vote for.
The mandate to give the people of Scotland a choice over their future is cast-iron. A majority of MSPs and Scottish MPs returned at the last two general elections support holding an independence referendum in the circumstances in which we now find ourselves.
This is a far stronger statement of intent than even the comments that Sturgeon made in advance of her trip to London, when she said that “we have the right to consider other options for our future, including independence.”
It’s worth remembering that Sturgeon must balance not only the demands of this Brexit endgame but also calls within her own party for a clearer signal about her referendum plans.
The SNP MP and prominent People’s Vote supporter Joanna Cherry has been tweeting today about the possibility of holding a second independence referendum during the transition period.
If there’s a #Brexit deal, during the transition period Scotland will require to decide whether our social, political & economic future lies within a market of 500 million or 60 million & in a union of equal partners or unequal partners #nobrainer #indyref2
— Joanna Cherry QC MP (@joannaccherry) January 23, 2019
In contrast to Cherry, yesterday the long-serving SNP MP Angus Brendan MacNeil called on Sturgeon to drop support for a second EU referendum and instead put the case for a fresh vote on Scottish independence to the “fore”, as did Alex Neil, the former SNP health secretary and Brexiteer, last week.
Also this week, former justice secretary Kenny MacAskill yesterday called for Sturgeon’s husband, the SNP chief executive Peter Murrell, to “move on” from his position in order to avoid the impression that he was shielding his wife from criticism over her handling of the Alex Salmond sexual harassment investigation.
Some paint these critics as elder statesman figures speaking for others who are reluctant to voice their concerns about party strategy in public because of their own, more active positions; others point out that these older, white, male voices represent a particular constituency within the party but do not reach beyond that. Nor is it clear what influence, if any, these voices have on Sturgeon’s thinking.
Meanwhile, activists within the SNP and across the wider yes movement are split, with some demanding that Sturgeon use her mandate immediately and others urging caution, particularly given the lack of dramatic movement in the polls. Will the waiting be over soon? Sturgeon finally pledged last week to set out her plans for a second independence referendum “in the coming weeks” even if article 50 is extended.
Updated
Back in the Lords EU committee Barclay claims that some of the opposition to Theresa May’s deal can be “overplayed”. He says the fact that the government was likely to lose meant some opposition MPs, who in other circumstances might have backed the government, decided not to.
Turning away from the committee hearing for a moment, this, from the BBC’s Laura Kuenssberg, is interesting ...
This is rather interesting... Arlene Foster and Nigel Dodds and their spouses had dinner with the Mays and stayed at Chequers last Friday
— Laura Kuenssberg (@bbclaurak) January 23, 2019
Hilary Armstrong, a former Labour chief whip, is asking the questions now.
Q: What does the PM mean when she says she will change the way she engages with parliament? And when will the government decide it is too late to get a deal?
Barclay says the government does not like the way MPs have been using “humble addresses” to get private government papers. So the government has been thinking about how else it can brief MPs. He mentions confidential briefings, and briefings for select committees as option. He suggests committees work more effectively than the Commons chamber.
On timing, Barclay says the government wants a decision “as soon as possible”.
Barclay says the government is not running down the clock. If there is a deal, it will have to pass legislation, he says. And even if there were to be no deal, the government would still have to pass legislation to prepare for that, he says.
- Barclay says government would need to pass legislation to prepare for a no-deal Brexit.
Barclay is talking about the proposal to keep the UK in the customs union. He says, if the government pivots in one direction, as well as picking up votes, it may lose them.
Updated
Q: How is the process working?
Barclay says there is an interplay. The EU want to know what the Commons would pass. And the government is trying to work out what different groups in the Commons would accept.
The backstop is the main issue; in particular, how it would affect the union of the UK, and whether it would be permanent, he says.
Barclay says the prime minister’s deal is the Brexit option “with the most support” in the Commons, although not sufficient support.
Brexit secretary Stephen Barclay questioned by peers
Stephen Barclay, the Brexit secretary, is being questioned by the Lords EU committee.
Lord Boswell, the committee chair, starts by asking Barclay about the amendments tabled ahead of next week’s Brexit debate.
Barclay says it is right to recognise that the government suffered “a very significant defeat”. Theresa May is now reaching out to MPs from across the Commons, he says. He says she wants to find out what the House will back.
One thing Michel Barnier, the EU’s chief Brexit negotiator, did not mention in his prepared speech today (see 3.33pm) was a possible extension of Brexit talks, which shows how carefully the EU is treading on this subject.
The decision to prolong article 50 lies with the EU’s 27 leaders who must agree unanimously to extend Brexit talks beyond 29 March 2019 - if there is a request from the UK. So far Theresa May has ruled out prolonging talks, although EU sources think she is in denial about the time constraints.
Guy Verhofstadt, the European parliament’s pointman on Brexit, signalled an important shift in thinking yesterday, when he said the EU needed to be “firm and flexible” on any extension. The MEP previously ruled out extra time beyond the European elections.
One EU source described the discussion on extension as “still very messy” and unclear, but added that it was difficult to imagine the EU slamming the door on the UK, if the British wanted more time, even if Brexit was still unresolved. The official said:
I find it hard at that stage to imagine, following an 11th-hour request, EU leaders would say ‘sorry, it is too late, you have to face the music’. The question [ on extension] would be for how long and what for.
For the sake of clarity, we will only know [the decision] when it lands on the table of the European council.
This is about the position they take ahead of national elections in their country … Would you really want no-deal just before the new European parliament takes office?
If you are looking for a break from Brexit, then do read my colleague Jim Waterson’s story about the opening of the libel case involving Richard Burgon, the shadow justice secretary, suing the Sun over claims he recorded a track with a heavy metal band which adopted Nazi imagery. It’s quite a tale ...
No-deal Brexit would remove 'mutual trust' needed for UK and EU to build future relationship, says Barnier
Michel Barnier, the EU’s chief negotiator, has warned the UK it will forfeit the EU’s trust and the Brexit transition period if it fails to ratify the withdrawal deal.
In a speech at the European Economic and Social Committee in Brussels, one of the EU’s lesser-known institutions, Barnier said:
Without ratification there will be neither a withdrawal agreement nor a transition period, nor will there be the mutual trust that we need, in order to construct the future relationship on a sound basis
His point is not a new one, although it is often missed by prominent Brexit supporting MPs.
Esther McVey, who resigned as work and pensions secretary over Brexit, said recently it appeared possible to get an “implementation period” without signing the withdrawal agreement. The former Brexit secretary, David Davis, has made similar claims.
Barnier said there were only two ways to leave the EU: “an orderly withdrawal” based on the current agreement; or “a disorderly withdrawal”, which he said would set the UK back decades.
If we fail in the Brexit negotiations, we will be stepping back, or at least the UK will be stepping back, to a time before it was a member of the EU and the single market, when customs duties were part of the day-to-day life of our businesses. So this no-deal scenario can’t be excluded today.
Opposing ‘no-deal’ will not stop ‘no-deal’ from happening at the end of March. To stop ‘no-deal’, a positive majority for another solution will need to emerge.
Barnier also devoted significant time explaining why checks would be needed to control goods coming into the EU from the UK, although he did not say these checks would be done at the Irish border.
“The border with Ireland is the border of our 27 countries,” he said, pointing out that the EU needed to carry out checks on all products coming into the single market to protect consumers, companies and government budgets.
This is the latest sign that the EU is stepping up its communications effort to explain what happens on the island of Ireland in the event of a no-deal Brexit.
Barnier also revealed mounting EU exasperation with the UK over the border issue, nothing that the all-UK backstop was based on “a specific request from the UK” and “wasn’t our idea”.
The backstop is the insurance plan to prevent the re-emergence of a hard border, if trade talks fail to find a solution in time.
British negotiators regard the all-UK backstop as a win over the EU’s initial proposal of a Northern Ireland-only backstop, which Theresa May said no prime minister could ever accept because she thinks it creates unacceptable differences within the UK.
Updated
Here is my colleague Jonathan Freedland on the pro-Brexit James Dyson’s decision to move his company HQ to Singapore.
And here is an extract.
Whether it’s Nigel Farage taking care to ensure two of his children can live, work and travel freely across the EU by having German passports, or Nigel Lawson, who lives in France, taking the precaution of applying for French residency, the pattern is familiar. It suggests a Brexiteer elite who believe that the pain of Brexit is for the little people. They are rich or powerful or connected enough to be insulated from the damage it will cause, making them free to sound off about its supposed benefits in the abstract – sovereignty! control! – while everyone else deals with the grim reality.
Rees-Mogg's speech and Q&A - Summary
Here are the main points from Jacob Rees-Mogg’s speech and Q&A at the Bruges Group. The suggestion this morning, prompted by extracts released in advance (see 10am), that Rees-Mogg was going to signal a significant softening of Tory Brexiter opposition to Theresa May’s deal turned out to be premature. Rees-Mogg, who is influential because the European Research Group that he chairs has led the Tory fight against the deal, did say that he thought a deal could be achieved. But he did not sound as if he, or the ERG, were willing to compromise much themselves, and he restated his willingness to see the UK leave the EU with no deal if necessary.
Here are the main points.
- Rees-Mogg said that Theresa May should close parliament temporarily if necessary (or prorogue it, to use the technical term) to stop MPs passing a bill blocking a no-deal Brexit. He also said that, if May refused to do this, she would be to blame for the bill passing, and Brexiters would hold her to account. He said:
If no deal were taken off the table, her majesty’s government would have had to connived in doing it. It cannot be done if the government is determined to stop it.
If the House of Commons undermines our basic constitutional conventions, then the executive is entitled to use other vestigial constitutional means to stop it, by which I basically mean prorogation. Prorogation normally lasts for three days, and any law that is in the process before prorogation falls. I think that would be the government’s answer. That is the government’s backstop, to use a choice phrase.
And if the government allows no deal to be taken off the table, that would be a failure of the government, and then it would be the job of backbench MPs to hold the government to account.
- He said that May’s deal could be amended to make it acceptable to Brexiters - but he implied that he expected the EU to compromise more than his own side. In his speech he said:
I think at last things are going our way. We have heard stories coming out of Ireland that they would like to have a bilateral agreement to keep the border open as the EU has toughened its line on the border between the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland. We have heard the Poles saying that they are more interested in their relationship with the United Kingdom because of our strong ties than they are particularly concerned about the Irish border ... We’ve heard that the Italians are beginning to think that these arrangements are not entirely satisfactory. And [Angela] Merkel has said she is willing to work day and night to get something done.
So I think there is good news for us - a hope that a reformation of this deal could be achieved that could make it acceptable.
But it is not there yet. And until it is, people like me will vote against the deal.
In the Q&A, when asked why he thought the EU was willing to compromise, he replied:
I think the truth is that everybody wants a deal; the prime minister wants a deal, the EU wants a deal, the Irish want a deal. And if the only way to get it is by re-opening the text, that is what they will have to do. This is realpolitik.
- Rees-Mogg said he would not back the withdrawal agreement until the backstop was removed. That was the only absolute condition he set for backing the deal. But he was specific.
As long as the backstop is there, I will not vote for the deal.
He also said that any change removing the backstop would have to be legally binding, and he said that he and his colleagues were “on the alert for meaningless soft soap” - ie, worthless apparent concessions.
- He implied that it would not matter if there were no deal because, the closer the UK got to 29 March, the closer it got to leaving. He ended his speech saying:
There is hope. There are two types of hope. One is, we will get a better deal. The other hope - tick tock goes the clock, and as it ticks down we get closer to leaving. And when we leave, we have taken back control, we are in charge.
- He claimed that attempts by Yvette Cooper and other MPs to pass legislation blocking a no-deal Brexit were a “constitutional outrage” intended to keep the UK in the EU.
Updated
Jeremy Corbyn will hold meetings with Labour backbenchers Yvette Cooper and Rachel Reeves this afternoon. Both MPs have tabled amendments to the government’s motion, aimed at averting a no-deal Brexit.
Corbyn’s spokesman would not say whether Labour would whip its MPs to support either move next week - though shadow chancellor John McDonnell suggested last night the Cooper-Boles amendment might be attractive if the extension to article 50 it provided for was shorter than nine months.
“We’ll look at all mechanisms to take no deal off the table and to give parliament more of a say”, the spokesman said.
He also insisted Corbyn’s decision to refuse the prime minister’s invitation for talks on Brexit, which she mentioned repeatedly at PMQs, had been, “vindicated by subsequent events”. He went:
Unless she makes clear that she is prepared to move, and compromise, and accept the reality that took place, in the scale of the defeat of her own deal, then she is simply trying to run down the clock, and prevent any real solution to this crisis.
Asked whether Corbyn would change his mind about discussions with May if one of these amendments passes, the spokesman said:
If the prime minister accepts that that means that no deal is off the table then of course he will engage.
And that is the end of the Q&A.
I will post a summary soon.
Q: Does the backstop have to removed from the withdrawal agreement? Or would you accept an end date?
Rees-Mogg says it will have to be clear that the backstop does not apply.
Q: The PM did not rule out customs union membership in the Commons this afternoon? What would you do if May did that?
Rees-Mogg repeats the point about not thinking that the Labour votes are there to encourage May to go down this route.
But he would vote against the customs union, he says. That is how the EU started.
Q: Are you saying the withdrawal agreement has to be re-opened, to remove the backstop text? Or would you accept an alternative legal agreement?
Rees-Mogg says it depends on the detail. The withdrawal agreement is superior law. Any alternative side text would have to have equal legal standing.
Rees-Mogg says the government cannot get its deal through with Labour votes. The numbers are not available, he says.
Rees-Mogg says May should close parliament temporarily if necessary to stop bill blocking no deal
Q: If no deal is taken off the table, will you encourage MPs to back May’s deal?
Rees-Mogg says no deal cannot be taken off the table without the connivance of the government. He says if the Commons passes a no-deal bill, there are other mechanism available to the government. It could prorogue parliament, he says.
- Rees-Mogg says government should if necessary prorogue parliament to stop Yvette Cooper’s bill to block a no-deal Brexit.
Proroguing is what happens to parliament at the end of a session. It is not the same as dissolving parliament (which is what happens before a general election), but it would involve closing parliament for a few days. Rees-Mogg is suggesting it because, if parliament did get prorogued, bills which were going through parliament but not yet on the statute book would automatically.
Updated
Rees-Mogg is now taking questions.
Q: It has been reported that you are shifting position. You say there might be a deal. What do you know that we don’t know?
Rees-Mogg asks how he could possibly know more than the BBC.
The truth is, everyone wants a deal: the government, the EU, the Irish. And so if the only way to do that is to re-open the text, that is what will happen.
But he will only back the deal if there is meaningful change.
He says he is “on the alert for meaningless soft soap”.
Updated
Rees-Mogg says Brexit will be “a rebirth, a retaking of control”, to establish a new politics for a generation.
We will take back control, he says. “And Yvette Cooper will not stop us.”
Rees-Mogg says there are two types of hope.
One is that the UK will get a better deal.
The other is “tick tock” - as time goes one, the UK gets closer to Brexit, he says.
Rees-Mogg says the Brexiter are a broad church. He was handed a Communist party leaflet on his way in, he says. He said it took him a while to realise, because it was sound on the EU.
Rees-Mogg waves his copy of the withdrawal agreement. Under it, the UK would not leave the EU properly, he says.
He says he reads in the papers that he has become “a soft touch”.
This deal does not deliver Brexit, he says.
The biggest problem is the backstop, he says.
As long as that backstop is there, I will not vote for this deal.
He says the deal needs “fundamental change”.
But he claims things “at last are going our way”.
The Irish have expressed a willingness to compromise, he suggests. He says the Poles and the Italians have expressed reservations. And Angela Merkel has said she will work day and night to get a deal, he says.
Rees-Mogg says, in 1832, when the reform bill was being debated and parliament was deadlocked, it was thought at one point that the King might have to prorogue parliament in person. He says he hopes that is not necessary this time, and that the Queen’s stay at Sandringham is not interrupted.
Rees-Mogg starts by saying he may have to disappear at short notice, because a vote is due in the Commons soon.
He says there are people trying to obstruct Brexit. That is what the Yvette Cooper bill is about, and that is what the “losers’ vote” (ie, the second referendum) is about, he says.
He says Cooper et al claim they are asserting the right of the Commons to control things. But it can do that by a confidence vote, he says.
He says a majority of MPs voted for Brexit, through the article 50 act and the EU Withdrawal Act.
Blocking Brexit would be “a constitutional outrage”, he says.
The person introducing Rees-Mogg says Rees-Mogg has become “a beacon of hope for those who believe in conservative values”.
Jacob Rees-Mogg's Brexit speech
Jacob Rees-Mogg is about to start his speech to the Bruges Group now.
Updated
Ireland will by bound by EU rules to impose checks on controls on the Irish border, in the event of no deal, a trade lawyer and expert on EU and World Trade Organisation rules told the Northern Ireland select committee this morning. Isabelle Van Damme told MPs:
It will be difficult for Ireland to unilaterally to take particular action in regards to trade.
The Irish side has obligations as a matter of EU law to apply the common customs code.
Ireland will be bound by EU rules and that will be difficult to reconcile that with its desire not to have the hard border.
This is from my colleague Jessica Elgot.
Absolutely packed house for Jacob Rees-Mogg addressing the Bruges group this afternoon. Press pack sitting in the aisles. pic.twitter.com/nxaMTMElLj
— Jessica Elgot (@jessicaelgot) January 23, 2019
And this is from the Independent’s Tom Peck.
On tiptoes outside a packed hall waiting for Jacob Rees-Mogg. His hype man currently saying "Border frictions? Load of old baloney." pic.twitter.com/8mA0Twc9t9
— Tom Peck (@tompeck) January 23, 2019
Jacob Rees-Mogg, the Conservative MP who chairs the European Research Group, which represents Tories pushing for a harder Brexit, is about to speak at a Bruges Group event.
There is a live feed at the top of this blog.
Judging by a short excerpt released in advance (see 10am), Rees-Mogg may signal that the ERG are in a mood to compromise.
The event has started, by Rees-Mogg won’t be speaking for a while. The current speaker has just been going on about Theresa May’s deal turning the UK into a “vassal state”. (It is that sort of event.) When Rees-Mogg does speak, I will cover what he is saying.
PMQs - Verdict from Twitter commentariat
This is what political journalists and commentators are saying about PMQs.
Generally, no one was very impressed.
From the Daily Mirror’s Jason Beattie
Snap verdict on PMQs: Stale exchanges between Corbyn and May failed to lift the gloom in Parliamenthttps://t.co/lTDnOVuCTG
— Jason Beattie (@JBeattieMirror) January 23, 2019
From HuffPost’s Paul Waugh
Well, we learned bugger all from that May-Corbyn #PMQs exchange. Apart from PM again refusing to rule out extending A50.
— Paul Waugh (@paulwaugh) January 23, 2019
From the Times’ Patrick Kidd
As May and Corbyn grapple (closed mind vs empty mind), I notice that neither the Brexit secretary nor his shadow are in the chamber. Maybe Barclay and Starmer are actually talking even if their leaders aren’t.
— Patrick Kidd (@patrick_kidd) January 23, 2019
From the Guardian’s Dan Sabbagh
Acute case of Brexit stasis at PMQs. Corbyn and May still locked in last week's argument about whether to meet or not. No wonder the public are increasingly frustrated...
— Dan Sabbagh (@dansabbagh) January 23, 2019
From Bloomberg’s Robert Hutton
PMQs: a chance to hear jokes from Twitter delivered badly and a week late.
— Robert Hutton (@RobDotHutton) January 23, 2019
From HuffPost’s Arj Singh
This is May’s best PMQs for ages. Trying to expose Corbyn on Brexit detail, suggesting he’s far from across it
— Arj Singh (@singharj) January 23, 2019
From Sky’s Kate McCann
Oh dear. In response to PM claiming Corbyn simply stands up and repeats the same phrases at #PMQs the Labour leader stands up and ... repeats the line he used in the previous answer about closed minds at Number 10. Hmm.
— Kate McCann (@KateEMcCann) January 23, 2019
Ian Blackford, the SNP leader at Westminster, also used his questions to ask about Brexit. He started by asking Theresa May if she had done an economic analysis of her deal. He pointed out that the one published by the government last year did not cover it specifically.
May said the economic analysis published last year did look at different aspects of trade. It made clear that the deal put on the table by the government was the best one, she said.
Blackford replied:
I can only take it from that answer that there is no analysis of the government’s plan. When we reflect on the paper that came out last November, Brexit will lead to a loss of up to 9% of GDP throughout the United Kingdom, costing jobs. It is the height of irresponsibility for the prime minister to bring a deal to this parliament, and we haven’t seen the economic impact. People up and down the United Kingdom are going to lose their jobs, are going to lose economic opportunity, because of the ideology of this government. It is important that this house stands up and reflects on this ... We have to be honest with people. We need to go back to the people and have a people’s vote.
May said the government had reflected on the economic needs of the country. That is why it negotiated a deal for an ambitious trade deal. She said if Blackford was interested in people’s economic interests, he should accept the economic analysis showing that being in the UK was worth £10bn in extra public spending to Scotland, or almost £1,900 for every single person in Scotland.
If [Blackford] is interested in economics, stay in the United Kingdom and stop your policy of independence.
Updated
Tim Farron, the former Lib Dem leader, wishes May a happy Cumbria day. He invites her to join him at a reception afterwards to sample Cumbrian food.
John Bercow, the Speaker, describes Farron as a “one-man tourist board”.
May says, while Cumbria has good produce, so does Berkshire.
Updated
James Gray, a Conservative, asks may to confirm that Dyson is completely committed to the UK, even though it is moving its HQ to Singapore.
May says the firm is committed to the UK. What matters to firms like Dyson is having a government committed to business.
Labour’s Liz McInnes says Santander is closing its branch in Middleton. What is the government doing to help high streets, other than “managed decline”.
May says the government is concerned about managing high streets. The budget contained plans to help councils protect high streets.
The SNP’s Stewart Hosie asks about a constituent who has waited 10 years to renew his passport. He has raised this before with May, but only had a holding answer.
May apologies to Hosie for not giving him a proper response. He says the home secretary will meet Hosie to discuss the case.
Lucy Allan, a Conservative, asks about the amount of time taken for the Telford child abuse inquiry.
May says the inquiry should be set up as soon as possible.
Labour’s John Mann is asking about a teenage constituent who took his own life. Does May agree that teenagers who need emergency mental health support should be able to access it within 24 hours?
May offers her condolences to the boy’s family. Every life lost is a tragedy. She says suicides are deeply concerning. That is why the government is increasing spending on mental health.
Updated
PMQs - Snap verdict
PMQs - snap verdict: A high-scoring, and fairly evenly-matched PMQs, where Corbyn probably had the upper hand, because by the end he sounded more reasonable. He devoted all his questions to Brexit, and mostly focused on challenging May to rule out no deal, and to accept the case for the UK staying in a customs union. On the latter point, May was reasonably clear, restating her opposition to a CU on the grounds that it would not allow the UK to strike its own trade deals. On no deal, she was more evasive. Corbyn asked at one point if she would accept the amendments tabled ahead of next week’s vote, designed to rule out a no-deal Brexit, if they are passed. This is a crucial question, because it is not clear that the amendments will actually have the impact the MPs who have tabled them hope, and May did not address this point at all, beyond saying that extending article 50 does not absolutely rule out no deal because it only postpones the decision point. The point Corbyn made at the end about May ruling out the two propositions for which there is majority support in the Commons was a strong one. But it was not a clear-cut win for him. Predictably, but not entirely unfairly, May clobbered him in her first response for his decision to boycott her cross-party talks on Brexit by imposing a precondition. (Many people have said he would have been better advised to just turn up, and denounce her inflexibility afterwards.) May also had a good riff about technical aspects of Labour’s CU policy, which the party has not been able to address. This attack line was well-founded too. But, overall, she came over as harsh and defensive, confirming the jibe Corbyn made about her having an open door but a closed mind. This was probably the best soundbite of the exchange. It was not actually Corbyn’s, because Hilary Benn first used this line in the Commons on Monday, but so what? Most viewers won’t have realised, and it worked.
Updated
Corbyn says Liam Fox could not name one country he has reached a trade deal with. He will sell jobs down the river. Why?
May says she wants a deal that protects jobs. She says Corbyn stands up and delivers phrases. But he does not know what those phrases mean, she says. And Corbyn has not mentioned the employment figures.
Corbyn says May has not mentioned poverty. The door may be open, but minds are closed, he says. He says a third of her government are at the billionaires’ jamboree at Davos. He says May has ruled out the two issues on which there is a majority in Commons – ruling out no deal and a customs union.
May asks why Corbyn won’t come and talk about it. She says borrowing is at its lowest level for 16 years, the IMF is predicting higher growth than for some other big economies, and the biggest threat to that would be a Labour government.
Updated
Corbyn says a no-deal Brexit would cost jobs and undermine living standards. Is her government ruling out a customs union with the EU?
May says Labour has an amendment on this. But what does Labour mean by staying in the customs union? She rattles off a series of questions, and says she would like to talk to Corbyn about it. If he won’t talk about it, he has not got a clue.
Corbyn says it is a simple question. The TUC backs his policy, she says, and the CBI, and the first minsters of Wales and Scotland. Can May explain why she is ruling it out? She could, for once, answer the question.
May says she will try to help. She says when people talk about it, they want businesses to be able to export to the EU without facing tariffs or rules-of-origin checks. Her deal allows that, but also allows the UK to strike its own trade deals.
Updated
Jeremy Corbyn starts by also mentioning Holocaust Memorial Day, and condemning antisemitism and racism.
He says the chancellor and the business secretary say there is a large majority in the Commons against no deal. So will she take it off the table?
May says the way to avoid no deal is to pass a deal. She says she wants to sit down and talk about how to secure support for a deal. Corbyn has been willing to sit down with Hamas, Hezbollah and the IRA without pre-conditions. But he won’t sit down with May. In this case, he is neither present nor involved.
Corbyn says he did offer to meet May last autumn. While May’s door may be open, her mind is closed. Will May confirm that, if the anti no-deal amendments are passed, they will rule out no deal.
May says the amendments do not solve the issue, because they just delay Brexit.
Updated
Stephen Kerr, a Conservative, says the UK is the most successful political union that the world has ever known. When Nicola Sturgeon demands a second independence referendum, the UK government should say no, he says.
May agrees. People in Scotland voted to stay in the UK. And at the last general election people indicated that they opposed a second referendum. A second referendum is “the last thing we want”, she says.
Updated
Theresa May starts by saying MPs will want to mark Holocaust Memorial Day on Sunday. It is a reminder we must all challenge prejudice and hatred, she says.
From the Times’ Patrick Kidd
A minute before PMQs and the place looks very bare. Lots of green leather visible on the Tory side. Not all I’m arguing with the whips surely.
— Patrick Kidd (@patrick_kidd) January 23, 2019
PMQs
PMQs is starting soon.
Here is the list of MPs down to ask a question.
The Irish border backstop would constrain the UK’s negotiating position during post-separation trade talks, a pro-Brexit legal expert said. As the Press Association reports, Martin Howe QC, who chairs Lawyers for Britain, said there would be no incentive for the EU to make concessions if the backstop was the default. Giving evidence to the Northern Ireland affairs committee, he said:
You cannot hold out for your essential interests. If you fail to reach agreement these terms come into effect, that constrains your negotiating power. Why should the other side give you better terms unless you are able to offer them something else in return that is better for them?
ITV’s political editor Robert Peston has written an interesting Facebook post about Jacob Rees-Mogg’s speech later today. (See 10am.) He sees it as evidence that Brexiters are “panicking that a referendum and staying in the EU will soon become the default position”.” But he is not convinced that a degree of flexibility from the ERG means a deal with the EU will be possible. He says:
So although the PM will take considerable comfort from the moves by Mogg and the DUP to tone down their rhetoric against the broader tapestry of her deal (which of course still repels them), she will need much more from them if the EU27 leaders are to make the kind of compromise which all history suggests they will never make.
The Brexiters and DUP will need to prove beyond reasonable doubt both that they would vote for a withdrawal agreement stripped of the [backstop], and that they command sufficient numbers of votes to carry it over the line.
It is that requisite very public endorsement by Mogg of May and the iteration of Brexit he despises that, to put it mildly, stretches credibility. Have stranger things ever happened?
Incidentally, what the “senior official” from an EU capital quoted by Peston says about the need for Theresa May to have a “large and stable” majority to get Brexit legislation through parliament sounds very similar to what Michel Barnier was saying in his Luxembourg Times interview. (See 10.50am.)
Updated
In evidence to the Commons justice committee, Geoffrey Cox, the attorney general, explained why he thought the publication of his legal advice on the Brexit backstop before Christmas should not be allowed to set a precedent for the future. Asked if it should, he replied:
No, I would argue not, because the principle [that government legal advice is kept private] is so vital to the conduct of good government, even more acutely so in circumstances of great public interest and controversy.
If every time the attorney general now has to consider whether or not his advice is going to be put up on a 24-hour rolling news programme and pulled apart in a 45-second analysis – without the nuance, without the context, without the bits that weren’t in bold, and only those bits in bold accentuated – he is going to have to consider how does he express himself in future ...
The attorney by definition tends only to give advice in exceptional circumstances and the more exquisitely sensitive and controversial they are, it is even more important that his advice should be able to be candid and frank and targeted. Sitting in cabinet ... he knows the issues with which his colleagues are struggling, he knows those which have to be accentuated and emphasised to drive home the point and he knows those points which are not necessarily so important. That particularly focused and targeted advice on the need of the moment will sometimes be given in a manner – because it is designed for that moment – that at another time, where there are different priorities and different understandings, he might have expressed himself differently.
Updated
French fishermen threaten to stop UK fish being sold in EU if they lose access to UK waters post-Brexit
This morning the Guardian reports on British fishermen’s anxieties about direct action from France in the event of a no-deal Brexit: the fishing community is becoming increasingly concerned that blockades by French crew, angry at no longer being able to fish in UK waters, could leave their catch rotting at the border.
These concerns would seem to be bolstered by an interview with Olivier Leprêtre, a Boulogne trawler skipper who is vice-president of France’s CNPMEM fishermen’s committee. He says that French fishermen will have nothing to lose by taking action, warning: “Not a single kilo of seafood from Britain will be allowed into Europe.”
He tells the Fisker Forum, an online fishing news service for the UK, Ireland and Scandinavia:
If we are sacrificed to Brexit, then we have nothing left to lose. We will get rid of every British flagged vessel, regardless of its ownership. That’ll be hard luck for the opportunists.
It’s hard to gauge just how damaging direct action in France could be. Bertie Armstrong, chief executive of the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation, told the Guardian that he believed any protests would be short-lived, but Elaine Whyte, who represents smaller fishing operations on the Clyde, warned that she feared some would go to the wall if live catch was not able to make it to its EU destination.
Updated
Barnier says UK could minimise backstop problem by opting for softer Brexit
Michel Barnier, the EU’s chief Brexit negotiator, has given an intriguing interview to the Luxembourg Times. Here are the main points.
- Barnier said the UK could minimise the problem posed by the backstop by opting for a softer form of Brexit. He said:
If the UK government wants to be more ambitious in its future relationship which is not part of the withdrawal agreement, we can do so, and then come to an agreement on the entire package. That would make the question of the backstop less prominent.
Looking at it objectively, I have the impression that the backstop is not the central issue. Ultimately, the debate in Britain is about what the future of the UK will look like. I believe that we can overcome the current difficulties when we discuss that issue together.
He also claimed there was a “readiness in London” for this sort of approach (although it is not clear if, by “London”, he meant the government or parliament). He said:
We’re cooperating with the British government. Things could start moving rapidly. This depends on the future relationship, like I already said. We are ready to be more ambitious if the British decide to shift their red lines, for example by remaining in a customs union, or participating in the single market. I believe there is a readiness in London for that.
- He conceded the EU could agree to extend article 50 in certain conditions. He said:
If Britain asks for an extension, it has to be approved by EU leaders. They will only agree if three questions are answered: first and second, why and how long? And third, will not that be a problem for holding the EU elections in May? I have no clear legal answer to the third question yet. It is important that the EU’s democratic processes are not disturbed by this, however.
The first two questions are complex and interconnected: it needs a stable majority in London for all laws related to Brexit that need to be adopted. This will need time.
- He said, if the UK leaves the EU with no deal, there will have to be checks on goods crossing the border between Ireland and Northern Ireland. When it was put to him that the UK did not need to accept the backstop, because in the event of a no-deal Brexit the UK and the EU would try to avoid a hard border anyway, he replied:
There will be checks in case of a no-deal-Brexit. We will do everything possible to enforce them unobtrusively. However, that will not be possible with everything. How should we control animals crossing the border? There will have to be checks. Again, the problem arose from Brexit and we expect the UK to take responsibility.
- He reaffirmed the EU’s opposition to putting a time limit on the backstop. This is one of Theresa May’s key demands. But Barnier said:
The backstop is like an insurance. It is not there to be used. And if so, only provisionally. However, we cannot tie the backstop to a time limit.
Jacob Rees-Mogg, the Tory Brexiter, seems to be implying in the speech is he giving to today that the EU may be willing to compromise over the backstop. (See 10am.) Barnier’s interview suggests otherwise.
- Barnier insisted that the Irish border problem was an issue for the EU as a whole, and not just for Ireland. He said:
This is a pan-European problem because it is to do with the integrity of the European single market. A product that enters the market in Northern Ireland and then Ireland will find itself in the European market and could continue to travel to Luxembourg. Here we have an obligation to protect European consumers and businesses and therefore we have to control these goods.
Updated
Sturgeon says May should extend article 50 instead of 'pursuing impossible' and hoping for backstop change
Scotland’s first minister Nicola Sturgeon is meeting Theresa May, along with the Welsh first minister Mark Drakeford, later today for further Brexit talks, but it’s fair to say that no one is expecting the conversation to be particularly constructive.
In advance of the meeting, Sturgeon warned May to “stop blaming everybody else” for the worse political crisis in decades, and “start listening”.
The Scottish government has consistently complained that its opinion has been sidelined in Brexit-related talks over the past three years, although May insisted on Monday that devolved administrations would now be more closely involved in discussions. SNP MPs have been involved in cross-party attempts to block a no-deal scenario.
Meanwhile, Sturgeon said that she would urge May to extend article 50 and consider a second referendum. She said:
Theresa May’s current strategy is to rule out the possible – extending the article 50 period – while pursuing the impossible – changes to the backstop. At today’s meeting I will be making clear to the prime minister that it is she who needs to change her position – not everybody else.
The time has come for the Brexit clock to be stopped, through a formal extension of article 50 to allow a second referendum on EU membership to be held. We simply cannot afford to be dragged any closer to the cliff edge of No-deal – an outcome which should now be explicitly and definitively ruled out.
Rees-Mogg to claim 'outbreaks of realism all round' make Brexit deal 'feasible'
Jacob Rees-Mogg, the Tory Brexiter who chairs the European Research Group, is giving a speech at lunchtime, and it sounds as if it is going to be significant. The ERG represents the 60-odd Tories most committed to a harder Brexit and it has led the opposition to Theresa May’s Brexit deal. Rees-Mogg celebrated the defeat of May’s deal by hosting a champagne reception and ERG members regularly argue that they would be happy to see the UK leave without a deal.
But now, according to a briefing from the speech sent out to journalists in advance, Rees-Mogg will say the backstop is the only “absolute obstacle” to a deal (in the past the ERG has highlighted many other objections to it), and he will suggest that he and his fellow Brexiters are in a mood to compromise.
Rees-Mogg will say:
There are outbreaks of realism all around I see.
All along we have been asking merely for the possible, not the impossible. And late in the day as the EU has inevitably left it, I’m sure common sense and practicality will now prevail.
The backstop doesn’t work for unionists in the Tory party, or the DUP. The pretence that we might ever swallow it is now over.
It’s long past time to get on and just do the feasible deal that has always been there to do.
(These words were supposed to be released under embargo, but the press notice sent to journalists did not make this particularly clear, and others have posted them on Twitter, and so I am putting them up now.)
Without having read the full speech, it is hard to know quite how real this shift it, but it could be evidence that the prospect of Brexit being blocked by the Commons has made Tory Brexiters more eager to support a deal that makes it happen. Nadine Dorries, another Tory Brexiter, made this argument in a Newsnight interview on Monday.
MPs won't be able to use vote next week to stop no-deal Brexit, Liam Fox claims
The next big parliamentary vote on Brexit comes next week and last night there was good news for those who want to amend the government motion to force the government to rule out a no-deal Brexit. There are various amendments on the order paper designed to do this, and one of the main ones has been tabled by Labour’s Yvette Cooper. It would create time for MPs to debate her bill (pdf) saying Theresa May would have to seek an extension of article 50 until the end of the year if MPs have not approved a Brexit deal by 26 February. On Newsnight last night John McDonnell, the shadow chancellor, all but announced that Labour will support the Cooper amendment. He said it was a “sensible proposal” and that it was “increasingly likely” that Labour would vote for it. Assuming the amendment gets called, given the number of rebel Tories in favour, this means it is highly likely to pass.
“Yvette Cooper has put an amendment down, which I think is sensible,” says Labour shadow chancellor John McDonnell adding “it’s increasingly likely” Labour would back her amendment@johnmcdonnellMP | #newsnight pic.twitter.com/HoeCAK7TA1
— BBC Newsnight (@BBCNewsnight) January 22, 2019
You can read the Cooper amendment, and all the others, on the order paper (pdf), staring from page 49. My colleague Jessica Elgot has written a good guide to what they all mean here.
But would the Cooper amendment actually stop a no-deal Brexit if it were passed? On the Today programme, Liam Fox, the Brexiter international trade secretary, claimed that it would not. He claimed that it was constitutionally improper. But he also claimed it would not work. Asked about it, he said:
I don’t think it is possible to do it [block a no-deal Brexit] in the way that they suggest. Some of the amendments being spoken about, where the House of Commons would take control over the initiation of legislation - there’s a real danger here, and it’s a much bigger constitutional one.
We have an arrangement in our country where the executive - ie, the government of the day - puts forward legislation, parliament scrutinises it, parliament amends it, parliament can decide to pass it or not pass it. What is being suggested here is the House of Commons both initiates the legislation and scrutinises it, which is a huge change to our constitution. And the danger here is, you change our constitutional conventions for one reason, but it has huge consequences elsewhere. And in effect, in this motion, we are being asked to change it without any real debate about the constitutional significance.
(In fact, parliament regularly debates and passes legislation proposed by backbenchers - there is a formal procedure for this - but never mind ...)
- MPs will not be able to use an amendment next week to stop no deal, Fox claims.
As the interviewer, Nick Robinson, pointed out, Fox’s argument bluntly contradicted what Philip Hammond, the chancellor, told business leaders in a conference call last week after MPs voted down Theresa May’s deal. Hammond urged them not to worry too much about a no-deal Brexit happening because MPs would block it. “I can simply as a parliamentarian say it is clear to me there is a large majority in the Commons that is opposed to no deal in any circumstances,” Hammond said.
In his interview, when it was put to him that even May admits a no-deal Brexit would be very bad for the UK, Fox claimed it would be better than delaying Brexit. He explained:
I think there are many who talk about delaying Brexit when what they really mean is not having Brexit at all. And I think the worst outcome in this political process would be for parliament, having given a guarantee to the voters that they would honour the result of the referendum, to turn round and break that contract with the voters ...
I think the most dangerous thing for Britain, politically, is for Brexit to be denied to the British people when they were specifically promised it. I think it would open up a gulf of trust between parliament and the people that might be difficult to repair, and with unknowable consequences.
- Fox claims delaying Brexit would be even worse for the UK than no deal.
Here is the agenda for the day.
10am: Geoffrey Cox, the attorney general, gives evidence to the Commons justice committee.
12pm: Theresa May faces Jeremy Corbyn at PMQs.
1pm: Jacob Rees-Mogg, the Conservative Brexiter and chair of the European Research Group, gives a speech to the Bruges Group.
4pm: Stephen Barclay, the Brexit secretary, gives evidence to the Lords EU 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 after PMQs and another at the end of the day, after the Barclay hearing.
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
