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

Government publishes amendment to EU withdrawal bill - Politics live

BRITAIN-EU-POLITICS-BREXITA remainer outside the Houses of Parliament.
A remainer outside the Houses of Parliament. Photograph: Ben Stansall/AFP/Getty Images

That’s it from me this evening. For a full report on the government’s amendment to the EU withdrawal bill, read this:

Have a peaceful evening.

Reaction to the amendment is pouring in from all sides.

Remain-supporting Labour MP Chuka Umunna, who is calling for a referendum on the Brexit deal, has said the amendment undermines trust in the government.

He told the Press Association:

If MPs in the prime minister’s own party can’t rely on her to keep her word, then how can our friends and allies in the EU trust any commitments she makes in the negotiations?

The simple reality is this: no matter how much the Brextremist minority wishes it were different, there is no majority in parliament for a destructive ‘no deal’ Brexit. And with-two thirds of voters now saying that Theresa May is handling Brexit badly, this kind of shambles shows exactly why we need a people’s vote on the final Brexit deal.

Updated

Department for Exiting the European Union has put out a statement on the government’s amendment to the EU withdrawal bill.

“Our new amendment respects the tests set out by the prime minister and the Brexit secretary”, a DExEU spokesperson said.

“We have listened to those across the house who called for the ability to express their views, in the unlikely event that our preferred scenario did not come to pass.

“That is why we have included three situations which would trigger a vote in both houses: a) should parliament reject the government’s deal with the EU, b) that no agreement can be reached, or, c) there is no deal agreed by the 21 January 2019. This ensures that in all circumstances parliament can hold government to account, while also allowing government to deliver on the will of the British people as expressed in the referendum.

“But this remains hypothetical and the government is confident we will agree a good deal with the EU which parliament will support.”

The Conservative MP Anna Soubry has called the actions of the government “unforgivable” and said ministers had gone back on an agreement at the last minute, without consulting Dominic Grieve who had been liaising on the amendment. Soubry said MPs would now consider backing Grieve’s previous amendment in full, which did not go to a vote on Monday night in the Commons after a compromise was struck with the prime minister. It has now been tabled in the Lords, where it will be debated on Monday.

“We want parliament to have a vote, and a say, deal or no deal. I believed, as many of my colleagues did, that the prime minister had agreed to that so on Tuesday, we didn’t push it to a vote and we met the prime minister and agreed that Dominic Grieve would work with people from the government and come up with an amendment that delivered exactly that, so in the event of no deal, there would a debate and vote, a meaningful vote, in parliament.

“That was what was agreed. Dominic, the solicitor general and others reached an agreement. It suddenly all changed. Which is the way of things sometimes. The appalling thing is that no one actually spoke to Dominic Grieve before they tabled that amendment at 5pm. I think that is unforgivable, you don’t behave like this, I’m very, very disappointed.”

Soubry said a “perfectly sensible compromise” had been reached this afternoon but had then been abandoned unexpectedly. “Unfortunately it looks like the prime minister has sided with them as opposed those people who accept we are leaving and want to get the best deal for our constituents and our country,” she said.

She said Conservative MPs who had trusted May’s promises in their private meeting on Tuesday night would be disappointed, and said they would have another chance if the Lords returned their amendment to the Commons next week. “We have tabled Dominic Grieve’s original amendment and which has been the subject of these discussions. We tabled it in the Lords in effect to take account of what we thought might happen but hoped wouldn’t happen, that the government would go back on an agreement that had been made,” she said. “

Dominic’s amendment is there in the Lords along with this amendment which has not been agreed by Dominic and people like myself. And both will be debated in the House of Lords on Monday night and then come back to the Commons. And it will be crunch time in my opinion. And people will have to decide if they are going to put their country and their constituents first. Or whether they are going to put loyalty to the Conservative party first. As an MP I took an oath, that I would put my constituents and country first.

“On Tuesday night, many people decided to back the prime minister, they took her at her word, they may well now feel very badly let down. They may choose not to blindly go along with this ridiculous amendment, but back the original amendment that Dominic tabled on Tuesday night. We are leaving the EU but we are not going to let these ideological hard Brexiters take us off a cliff, destroy our economy, destroy peace in Northern Ireland. We are going to do the right thing and put our country and our constituents first.”

The Tory rebellion is back on.

Read the report from Heather Stewart and Anne Perkins here:

Keir Starmer, Labour’s shadow Brexit secretary, has reacted to the government’s amendment on giving parliament a meaningful vote on the final Brexit deal.

It’s complicated stuff, but in short, it seems like the Dominic Grieve deal is off.

The government’s amendment describes what must happen if the UK prime minister announces that no deal has been reached with the European Union on the withdrawal agreement or the future relationship.

Under a no deal scenario, a government minister must make a statement to parliament within 14 days and give MPs the chance to vote. However, the vote would be on “a motion in neutral terms”, meaning that parliament has merely considered the statement.

The Guardian’s Heather Stewart explains:

Government publishes amendment to EU withdrawal bill

The long-awaited amendment has finally been tabled.

Tory remainer Anna Soubry has said the government wording may not meet the rebels’ demands, tweeting that the amendment had not been agreed by Dominic Grieve.

Updated

The compromise over the “meaningful vote” amendment appear to have fallen apart, with Tory remainers reportedly rejecting the government position.

Here is BBC’s Laura Kuenssberg:

Updated

Afternoon summary

  • Carwyn Jones, the Welsh first minister, has urged Theresa May to abandon her Brexit red lines in a speech setting out a blueprint for a Norway-style Brexit which he says would be acceptable to a majority of MPs and voters. (See 4pm.)

That’s all from me for today.

Thanks for the comments.

Here’s more on the “meaningful vote” negotiations taking place today between the government and the Tory rebels.

From the BBC’s Laura Kuenssberg

From the Times’ Sam Coates

Welsh first minister sets out plan for Norway-style Brexit which he says majority of MPs would back

The Labour party is opposed to keeping the UK in the single market but, as it set out in its amendment (voted down) to the EU withdrawal bill yesterday, it wants “full access to the internal market of the European Union, underpinned by shared institutions and regulations, with no new impediments to trade and common rights, standards and protections as a minimum”. Senior figures at the EU reportedly think this is Boris Johnson-style “cakeism”, a wholly unrealistic demand. But in a well-argued speech in London this morning Carwyn Jones, the Labour first minister of Wales, set out in some detail what this sort of Brexit might look like.

I can’t find the full text online, but here is a summary with the main points.

  • Jones said Theresa May should abandon her red lines and negotiate a “dynamic and positive relationship with the single market”. He explained:

What I want to do today is to call on the UK government to use this last opportunity to come clean on Brexit, to erase the wobbly red lines and to get the country into a proper Brexit ready position ...

It is to go back to the drawing board. Rub out the red lines, and argue for a dynamic and positive relationship with the single market.

A solution where the UK makes a positive commitment to working with the EU27 to retain alignment with the single market as a regulatory space; and a new, durable, customs union with the EU.

In terms of the single market, we do not have to look far for a model.

The solution may not be to join EFTA and through it retain membership of the European Economic Area (EEA) – though as a Welsh government we have never ruled that out as a potential part of the solution.

But at least a similar arrangement, where we acknowledge that the EU retains its decision making autonomy and where the clear and stated assumption is that, except in exceptional circumstances, we will not just have regulatory alignment on day 1 after we leave, but day 1,001 or 10,001.

As for a customs union, it’s true to say there is no existing model we can point to.

But it is quite feasible to construct one.

Where the EU no longer is responsible for negotiating on behalf of the UK, but where both the EU and the UK agree to the closest consultation about future trade policy; to launch and conclude new free trade negotiations with trading partners in parallel; and to co-ordinate closely on trade disputes and trade remedies.

Jones said that, although the EU was opposed to cherry picking, it may be possible for the UK to remain fully aligned with single market rules for goods, including agriculture and fisheries, while being free to diverge in some service sectors (and paying for market access accordingly).

  • He accepted that his plan would involve the UK losing some independence, and becoming a rule-taker, but he said that it was better to lose out politically than to lose out economically.

When I visited Norway eighteen months ago, it was striking that most businesses I spoke to were happy with the status quo.

They felt they had the possibility to shape emerging regulations in the sectors they cared about by using their technical knowledge and expertise in working groups which they had access to by virtue of Norway’s EEA membership.

And single market participation gave them huge economic benefits which could never be replicated outside. But they admitted that Norwegian politicians would have more influence if Norway had joined the EU.

So we have to ask the question: if a price is to be paid for our decision to leave the EU – and there surely is – then is it best paid by a reduction in our political influence, or by the loss of investment, jobs, and livelihoods.

As a politician, as a socialist, as someone who has seen the damage to generations of Welsh citizens of wholesale closure of industries, I know what my answer is.

I have made this argument before, and it is one I even heard Brexiteers make during the referendum – if Norway can strike a deal like this, in the interests of its people, and not its politicians, then what is stopping us?

  • He suggested that the UK could be bound by the Efta (European free trade association) court in relation to single market membership. This would avoid the UK being directly subject to the European court of justice, but would be acceptable to the EU, he said.

Here is a court which has autonomy, is recognised and trusted within the EU legal order – including setting precedents where it deals with issues which have not come before the European court of justice. Surely, here is a model we should be discussing with the article 50 taskforce?

  • He accepted that the status quo, in terms of immigration and free movement, had to change, but he floated the idea of offering the EU preferential access to the UK labour market.

I do not argue for the status quo. But we have to talk and think in terms which reflect the basic philosophy of the EU - that participation in the unique construction of the single market requires preference for EU/EEA citizens. The suggestion in the press that the new home secretary does not understand this is deeply worrying.

And we also should acknowledge – particularly in the wake of the Windrush scandal - that basic decency (not EU diktat) requires that once people have contributed through work to the well-being of the country they have chosen to live in, they should be entitled to the same rights (as well as responsibilities) of citizens of that country.

Our policy paper, Fair Movement of People sets out a viable way forward on all this, based around two pillars:

Linking the right for EU citizens who are not students or economically self-sufficient to move to this country more clearly to employment (and accepting that is also the case for UK citizens wanting to up sticks and live in Berlin or the Dordogne).

Addressing the root causes of the disaffection and despair which causes deep suspicion of immigration, ironically mostly in areas where it is least prevalent. We need much more energetic enforcement and enabling of legislation which already exists to protect workers from exploitation; further measures to promote fair work and an end to the misguided and disastrous policy of austerity.

The first of these will need new thinking about our administrative processes: but I think we can all agree that the Windrush scandal proves that an overhaul is long overdue in this area.

  • He said his plan could command majority support in parliament and in the country.

Where is the parliamentary majority against the sort of Brexit outcome I have described? For all his bluster, Jacob Rees-Mogg and his cohorts can only veto the negotiated withdrawal agreement if Labour, the Lib Dems and the SNP vote with him.

And is that really a credible scenario if the government commits to and delivers and outcome close to that set out in Wales’ own white paper?

Because here’s the bigger point – I do not believe there is a parliamentary majority against the Brexit I advocate, but nor do I believe there is a public majority against it either.

  • He said that the government seemed to be heading for a Brexit “where the UK neither has its cake nor gets to eat it”.
  • He said that, if Brexit was handled badly, it would contain “the seed of the UK’s own destruction as a constitutional entity”.
  • He dismissed the idea that “max fac” (one of the customs solutions being studied by the government) would prove a workable solution to the border problem after Brexit, saying “years after introducing a similar scheme between the US and Canada, only a tiny minority of businesses have trusted trader status?” He also complained that it would cost “huge amounts of money”.

Updated

More on the “meaningful vote” amendment. This is from the Sun’s Steve Hawkes.

Tom Watson says losing weight has made him feel as if his IQ has improved

Tom Watson, Labour’s deputy leader, is the guest on Nick Robinson’s Political Thinking podcast this week. The BBC has sent out some extracts and one of the most interesting bits came when Watson talked about his recent decision to lose weight. (He has lost more than six stone over the last year.). Watson told Robinson that losing weight made him feel as if his IQ had improved. He said:

I do feel like losing all this weight has actually been a transformational experience for me in a way that I didn’t know or anticipate nine months ago when I started trying to lose weight, and I do genuinely feel a lot calmer, a lot more in equilibrium, so I guess I am a bit more chilled out. This isn’t political, in fact there are the occasional days where I feel like maybe I’m too chilled out for the circumstances I find myself in. It adds to resilience and patience, and right now being deputy leader of the Labour Party those are two qualities I think are quite useful to me.

The best bit about it for me is that it’s lifted a brain fog that I didn’t know was there. I feel like my mental acuity has improved, almost like my IQ has improved. I feel much sharper.

Watson might need all that extra IQ power to fend off a challenge from Len McCluskey, the Unite general secretary. The pair used to be friends but they fell out when Labour MPs tried to unseat Corbyn in the summer of 2016 (McCluskey backed Corbyn, but Watson didn’t) and they haven’t spoken since then. Asked if McCluskey and Unite were now coming after him, Watson replied:

Yes, he is coming for me. They’re upping their delegates and all of that. What will be, will be. He’s powerful enough, if he wants to take me out as deputy leader, he probably could, but that’s up to him. I’m just going to get on and try and bring everyone back together and do what I can as best I can.

Bercow grants emergency debate on Sewel convention for Monday

John Bercow, the speaker, has just granted an emergency debate on the operation of the Sewel convention. He allowed it in response to an application from Ian Blackford, the SNP leader at Westminster. It will take place on Monday.

This is from ITV’s political editor Robert Peston.

It confirms that Gary Gibbon was reporting earlier. (See 12.34pm.)

Mundell says he wanted to be able to bring forward the amendments to the EU withdrawal bill affecting devolution when the bill was in the Commons. But he wanted to bring forward “agreed amendments”. He could not do that because the SNP would not agree, he says.

Mundell says the government will not have “bespoke arrangements for different parts of the United Kingdom” in its Brexit settlement.

Mundell says he thinks the people of Scotland are “sick and tired of this constitutional wrangling”. They want the two governments to work properly together, he says.

The SNP’s Chris Law says Murray Foote’s declaration that he is now in favour of independence (see 10.12am) means that the union is “well and truly stuffed”.

Mundell says Foote is and will remain a good friend of his. He says people should be able to disagree about independence without ill feeling.

Plaid Cymru’s Jonathan Edwards says the Welsh Labour government’s decision to reach an agreement with London over devolution must be one of the biggest sell-outs in Welsh history - which, as a historian, he knows is quite something, he says. He says the UK government’s plan will turn Wales and Scotland its “vassal states” after Brexit.

Mundell says he doesn’t agree.

The SNP’s decision to disrupt PMQs yesterday with a procedural protest, followed by a walkout, has done wonders for the party’s membership drive. As my colleague Libby Brook reports, 5,000 people have joined the party in the last 24 hours.

Updated

Mundell says Scotland is not a partner of the United Kingdom. It is part of the United Kingdom.

Labour’s Hilary Benn, chair of the Brexit committee, calls for talks on how the “common framework” for UK-wide law will work after Brexit.

Mundell says there has already been an agrement on this.

Mundell says he takes the threat from the SNP about not cooperating with the UK government seriously. But he hopes that “cool heads” will prevail and that they will reconsider.

The SNP’s Pete Wishart says there is only one thing he wanted to hear from Mundell today - his resignation. And he says that as someone who is fond of Mundell.

Mundell says he has not changed the devolution settlement. He repeats the point about the government abiding by the Sewel convention.

Labour’s Ian Murray says he understands that Mike Russell, the Scottish government’s Brexit secretary, was willing to agree a deal with London over devolution. But Nicola Sturgeon, the first minister, blocked this, he says. He urges Mundell to try again to get a deal.

Mundell says he reached out to Russell. But Russell told him there was no scope for compromise.

Mundell is replying to Blackford.

He says Blackford implied the Sewel convention is absolute. But it is not, he says. He says it just says that in normal circumstances the UK will not legislate on a devolved matter without Scotland’s consent. But leaving the EU is clearly not a normal situation, he says.

SNP accuses government of turning Sewel convention 'on its head'

Ian Blackford, the SNP’s leader at Westminster, tells Mundell: “Is that all you’ve got?”

He says Mundell’s statement amounts to a new interpretation of the constitution. He says Mundell is trying to turn Sewel on its head. The point of Sewel is that, if there is no agreement between London and Edinburgh, the UK government should not legislate on a devolved matter. But Mundell is saying, when there is no agreement, London is obliged to legislate on its own.

  • Blackford accuses government of turning Sewel convention “on its head”.

He says Mundell promised proper time for a debate, a power bonanza for Scotland after Brexit, and protection for Scotland’s place in the single market. On all these points, Mundell has been proved wrong, he says.

  • Blackford says Mundell should resign now.

Ross Thomson, a Conservative, says Mike Russell, the Scottish government’s Brexit minister, said these are not usual circumstances. He says the Sewel convention only says what should normally happen, so it does not apply.

Mundell is responding to Sweeney.

He says it is disappointing to hear Labour, which has traditionally been a unionist party, echoing SNP language.

He says other Labour politicians in the Lords have accepted the government’s devolution amendments to the EU withdrawal bill.

Labour says Mundell should resign if he can’t reach agreement with Scottish government on EU withdrawal bill

Paul Sweeney, a shadow Scotland Office minister, is responding now.

He criticises the government for not accepting Labour’s amendments to the EU withdrawal bill, and for not allowing proper time for the devolution aspects of the bill to be debated.

He challenges Mundell to agree to cross-party talks to resolve the deadlock.

He says, if Mundell cannot broker an agreement between the UK government and the Scottish government, he should resign.

  • Labour says Mundell should resign if he can’t reach agreement with Scottish government on EU withdrawal bill.

David Mundell's statement on Brexit and Scotland

David Mundell, the Scotland secretary, is making a Commons statement on Brexit and Scotland.

He says the EU withdrawal bill explicitly says decision-making powers currently exercised by the Scottish parliament will not be taken away from it.

He says the UK does want to retain power over some of the policy areas being repatriated from Brussels that relate to matters normally devolved. But most of the powers are being devolved, he says. He says London wants to temporarily hold on to powers in 24 areas.

He says Scotland has two parliaments, the Edinburgh parliament and the London one, but the London one is the only one that can speak for the whole of the UK.

He says the UK government tried to reach agreement with the Scottish government. It did reach agreement with the Welsh one.

But you can only do a deal if the other side is willing, he says. He says the Scottish government wanted a veto for Scotland over these policy areas.

He says Westminster does have the right to legislate on matters affecting Scotland when it has to. But the government always wants to reach agreement.

He says the UK is legislating in line with the Sewel convention.

(The Sewel convention says the UK government should only normally legislate on devolved matters with the consent of the devolved legislature. The Scottish parliament has not granted consent to the EU withdrawal bill, and so the SNP claim the government is ignoring the convention.)

Bill Morris tells peers May's 45,000 changes to immigration rules contributed to Windrush scandal

In the Lords peers are debating impact of the government’s “hostile environment” policy towards illegal immigrants on people with the right to live and work in the UK. The debate was opened by Labour’s Lord Bassam, who called the debate, and he was followed by the former TGWU union leader, Bill Morris, who said that he was a member of the Windrush generation (he came to the UK in 1954).

In his speech Morris blamed Theresa May for introducing policies that led to some Windrush-era migrants losing their jobs or benefits, or worse. He particularly criticised her for overseeing 45,000 changes to immigrations rules when she was in office. He told the Lords:

When Mrs May took over at home secretary in 2010 and set about making a big reduction in net migration numbers, her attempts didn’t always work. The 2013 promise of a “hostile environment” for illegal immigrants was soon to be a hostile environment for everyone, including legal immigrants. Reduced numbers of Home Office staff had to navigate through some 45,000 changes to immigration rules made during Mrs May’s tenure at the Home Office. My Lords, I ask: was the Windrush generation seen as the easy target?

(When Morris used the 45,000 figure, I initially assumed he mis-spoke, but the figure comes from a Liberty briefing.)

Morris also said that he thought this week’s announcement about the government relaxing immigration rules for overseas doctors showed that “sanity’ was prevailing.

At last, sanity is prevailing. It seems that there is a rethink to the demands of the UK’s labour market. Employers are saying enough is enough.

Bill Morris
Bill Morris Photograph: Bill Morris/Parliament TV

Gary Gibbon, the Channel 4 News political editor, says in an interesting post on his blog that Dominic Grieve thinks he will be able to reach a compromise with the government over giving parliament a “meaningful vote” on Brexit. His article is worth reading in full, but here’s an excerpt.

Yesterday saw some amazing flurries of speculation and briefing. One particularly surprised remainers as reports flew around that the government wasn’t discussing clause c when the remainers were in talks with Gavin Barwell about specifically that.

There was an overnight quandary over whether the wording of the amendment was justiciable. The government tried to push back on the “motion” language hoping that they could water that down to a “statement.” There has been a focus on the dates (end of November and mid February). But the main attention has been on clause c and the power it gives to MPs to direct or instruct ministers. As I’ve mentioned before, Dominic Grieve’s rebel army included people who were queasy about that on constitutional grounds so they (almost all of them) were always up for compromise language.

The House of Lords will consider the Commons amendments to the EU withdrawal bill on Monday. Andrea Leadsom, the leader of the Commons, has just announced the Commons business for next week and she said the bill will then go back to the Commons on Wednesday. That will be when Theresa May will face another parliamentary rebellion if her compromise offer on the “meaningful vote” issue does not satisfy Dominic Grieve and his allies.

In response to a Commons urgent question, Guto Bebb, a defence minister, said the government was “very disappointed” by the EU’s decision to exclude the UK from full access to the Galileo satellite navigation system after Brexit. He said:

We are now having to look extremely carefully at the possibility of developing our own options, but I would stress again that this government would prefer to remain involved with the Galileo project.

I think this is really a case of the European Union doing damage to themselves.

Spare a thought for Dominic Grieve. On Tuesday he led the Conservative backbench rebellion demanding that parliament should have the right to intervene if MPs vote down the Brexit withdrawal agreement. The Brexiter newspapers took a dim view, and today - as has become customary - Grieve gets the full character assassination treatment from the Daily Mail.

It has splashed on a story saying he attended a private meeting organised by groups opposed to Brexit at the European commission’s HQ in Smith Square, London. Just in case any readers haven’t got the message, there’s also a hatchet job profile by Quentin Letts (Arrogant and vain ... the bitter egomaniac with very complex loyalties) and a critical editorial. This is from David Yelland, a former Sun editor.

Asked about the story, Grieve told the Press Association that he was not involved in a conspiracy. He said:

I went along to speak at a meeting. I often go to meetings to speak at people’s invitation and that’s what I did. The meeting had been called by one of my Conservative colleagues to discuss how the process of Brexit was unfolding and to seek a briefing from me as to how I thought the dynamics were playing out in parliament.

Grieve said he believed the meeting had been held at the European Commission’s London office in Smith Square because it was organised by an MEP. He also said that what he told the meeting was just what he says in public.

I told the meeting what I say publicly all around the place. Look at my lectures, go on my website, have a look at what I have to say about how I see the current dynamics of Brexit and the problems associated with it and the problems of trying to bring this to satisfactory conclusion.

It certainly, from my point of view, was not a meeting to conspire with anybody.

Dominic Grieve speaking in the Commons on Tuesday.
Dominic Grieve speaking in the Commons on Tuesday. Photograph: HO/AFP/Getty Images

Asked about business concerns about the UK leaving the customs union, Davis says the government listens to business but has to take decisions in the best interests of the country as a whole. That means considering the interests of businesses that might benefit from future trade deals, as well the interests of businesses that trade with the EU, he says.

Sir Keir Starmer, the shadow Brexit secretary, says Davis has threatened to resign more times this year than he has met Michel Barnier. On Tuesday Theresa May offered concessions to backbenchers. Yesterday Dominic Grieve, the backbencher, says the Commons would get a meaningful vote that would allow MPs to stop the UK leaving the EU without a deal. But Robert Buckland, the solicitor general, says parliament would not be allowed to take control of the negotiation.

Davis says any government offer must meet three conditions: that it respects the referendum result; that it does not interfere with the negotiations; and that it does not alter the constitutional principle that the government, not parliament, negotiates treaties.

Starmer asks if the new amendment being published later today will make it clear that, if the withdrawal agreement is voted down, parliament, not the executive, will decide what happens.

Davis says Starmer will have to wait until the amendment is published.

Davis says this has been an important week for Brexit. The EU withdrawal bill will return to the Lords a much better piece of legislation because of this week’s votes, he says.

After the boost in SNP membership yesterday following the Commons walkout, the pro independence campaign won another significant backer today when the man who engineered the infamous Vow, which promised more powers to the Scottish Parliament in the event of a no vote a few days before the independence referendum in 2014, came out for independence.

Murray Foote, who has recently resigned as editor of the Daily Record, wrote about his ‘journey to Yes’ in the Times (paywall) this morning.

As editor of the Record, Foote was the author of The Vow in which David Cameron, Ed Miliband and Nick Clegg promised sweeping new powers instead of independence.

Although subsequent social attitudes research found that the Vow did not sway many voters, the Record and Foote have been much maligned by pro independence supporters ever since. Now Foote joins their camp.

The Daily Record’s The Vow splash
The Daily Record’s The Vow splash Photograph: Daily Record

Updated

The SNP’s Patricia Gibson asks about Boris Johnson’s claim that the Brexit talks are heading for meltdown.

Suella Braverman, a Brexit minister, says she does not agree with that analysis. She does not accept predictions of failure.

Davis says David Mundell, the Scotland secretary, will make a Commons statement later on Brexit, Scotland and the Sewel convention. It will come at around 12.30pm.

Paul Blomfield, the shadow Brexit minister, says, before Monday, Davis had only met Barnier twice this year. Why is that? Has be been sidelined?

Davis says Labour should not criticise the government over divisions. Just this morning he read a tweet from Labour Whips celebrating the fact that “only 75” Labour MPs rebelled last night.

Hilary Benn, the Labour chair of the Brexit committee, says the government’s backstop plan did not cover regulatory aspects. That is why Michel Barnier rejected it. Will Davis table a revised proposal covering regulatory issues, not just customs issues.

Davis says Benn is uncharacteristically wrong. Barnier did not reject the backstop, he says. He says he and Barnier discussed this when they met on Monday.

Davis says staying in the EEA would mean accepting free movement of people. But both main parties rejected that at the last election.

He praises the speech the Labour MP Caroline Flint gave in the Brexit debate yesterday making that point.

David Davis, the Brexit secretary, is answering his first question at Brexit questions. Junior ministers answered the first three.

He says three quarters of the withdrawal agreement has been agreed.

Matt Warman, the Conservative MP for Boston and Skegness, says his constituency had the largest pro-leave vote. Does Davis agree that there is no example in the world of a parliament successfully negotiating an international treaty?

Davis agrees. He says those who want parliament to take charge of the Brexit talks did not argue this when the Lisbon or Amsterdam treaties were being negotiated.

We cannot accept amendments that allow parliament to instruct government on what steps it should take in the national negotiation because that undermines one of my three tests.

Such a move would be constitutionally unprecedented, the current constitutional arrangements have served this country well for hundreds of years over thousands of treaties.

I have to say those who’ve argued for something different did not argue for the House of Commons to negotiate directly our accession to the European Union or indeed the Lisbon treaty, or the Amsterdam treaty or the Maastricht treaty so it’s rather odd they made such an argument now.

Updated

SNP promises more parliamentary disruption, with trade bill possible next target

The SNP Westminster leader Ian Blackford has warned that the UK government’s trade bill may be the next target of nationalist action as the row over devolution post-Brexit escalates this morning.

Signalling the start of a war of attrition with the Conservative government, Blackford said that his group of 35 MPs would use parliamentary procedure to disrupt government business in the Commons, in order to highlight what he described as their “obstructive” stance towards devolution.

Referred to the walkout of SNP MPs during PMQs on Wednesday, Blackford told BBC Scotland’s Good Morning Scotland:

This is something that doesn’t end with what happened yesterday. It is an outrage that Scotland’s voices haven’t been heard. We’ve had the situation where the amendment that went through that stripped powers from the Scottish parliament has done so without any Scottish MP being able to debate the matter. That’s an absolute outrage.

Blackford went on to say that the SNP would take “whatever action is necessary to defend our interests”, following what he said was the UK government’s failure to respect the views of the Scottish parliament on the EU withdrawal bill.

Blackford said that a “line had been crossed” and that the UK government could expect more disruption to come. He said:

We will use parliamentary procedure and we will make sure that we can frustrate as much as we can what the government are doing. We will remain civil, we will remain polite, we will remain courteous but they need to understand that a line has now been crossed, that the Conservatives are enacting legislation without the support of the Scottish parliament, we are now in different territory.

He also said the SNP had “real concerns” with the trade bill.

Ian Blackford (centre) with fellow SNP MPs outside the Houses of Parliament yesterday after Blackford was suspended from the chamber for disrupting proceedings.
Ian Blackford (centre) with fellow SNP MPs outside the Houses of Parliament yesterday after Blackford was suspended from the chamber for disrupting proceedings. Photograph: Stefan Rousseau/PA

Updated

The Labour MP Laura Smith made the Today programme this morning. Until yesterday she was relatively unknown at Westminster - she was only elected as MP for Crewe and Nantwich last summer - but she resigned last night as a shadow minister for the Cabinet Office so that she could vote against the UK staying in the EEA (European Economic Area) after Brexit, defying Labour orders to abstain. This morning she explained her decision. She told the programme:

A member of parliament’s first duty is to their constituents. I represent a constituency that strongly voted to leave the EU and I believe that remaining in the EEA does not serve the best for our economic interests.

But the interview got most interesting when Today’s Nick Robinson asked her whether she agreed with Brexit. She said she did not think remaining in the EEA would be in her constituents’ best interests but, when asked if she thought Brexit was in their best interests, she dodged the question. She replied:

We have to move forward with this argument. People in my constituency voted to leave. There are reason, legitimate reasons, why they voted to leave. And I think we need to start having a really grown-up conversation about this, and start moving forward.

She denied being afraid to speak out because of her minuscule majority (it’s 48). She was a primary school teacher before becoming an MP, she said, and she was not interested in her career. But when Robinson put it to her that, if she thought Brexit was wrong, she should say so, she had a robust reply. She told him:

I think a bad idea is giving people a choice and then telling people they’re wrong. It’s against democracy. We need to be moving forward, we need to understand the reasons why people voted. No, I’m not going to say the people in my constituency were wrong to vote to leave. It’s my job to understand why they voted to leave and try and fight to make their lives better.

More Brexit in a moment. Here is the agenda for the day.

9.30am: David Davis, the Brexit secretary, takes questions in the Commons.

10am: Carwyn Jones, the Welsh first minister, gives a speech on Brexit in London.

10.30am: Commons urgent question on Galileo, followed by an urgent question about Rolls Royce job cuts.

After 11.30am: Peers debate the impact of the government’s “hostile environment” approach towards illegal immigration.

Around 12.30pm: David Mundell, the Scotland secretary, gives a Commons statement on Brexit, Scotland and the Sewel convention.

At some point today the government is also due to publish its compromise amendment on MPs getting a “meaningful vote” on Brexit. The BBC’s Laura Kuenssberg has the latest.

As usual, I will be also be covering breaking political news as it happens, as well as bringing you the best reaction, comment and analysis from the web. I plan to post a summary in the afternoon.

You can read all today’s Guardian politics stories here.

Here is the Politico Europe round-up of this morning’s political news from Jack Blanchard. And here is the PoliticsHome list of today’ top 10 must reads.

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

I try to monitor the comments BTL but normally I find it impossible to read them all. If you have a direct question, do include “Andrew” in it somewhere and I’m more likely to find it. I do try to answer direct questions, although sometimes I miss them or don’t have time.

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

Updated

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
If you're copy-pasting from AI, you aren't learning. Try these "active" shifts instead
Learn how to use AI as a study partner that enhances learning instead of replacing it.
Tom’s Guide
Tom’s Guide
Arnold Schwarzenegger: 'Lucille Ball was like a mother to me'
Arnold Schwarzenegger adored working with Lucille Ball and described her as being "like a mother" to him.
BANG Premier
BANG Premier
As An Old School Red Hot Chili Peppers Fan, The New Netflix Doc Is The Story I Needed To Hear
Fight like a brave!
Cinemablend
Cinemablend
Kansas City cat rescued by firefighters after fleeing vet visit
Kitteh in trouble they were there on the double.
We Got This Covered
We Got This Covered
Woman brought a shower caddy to Costco’s food court, and 2 million people are now reconsidering everything they know about shopping
It’s a simple hack.
We Got This Covered
We Got This Covered
‘Men in women dominated field’: Woman picked the club, thinking it was just a fun first date. Then he scams her twice
"A creative way to have a free night out"
We Got This Covered
We Got This Covered
Fourteen days free
Download the app
One app. One membership.
100+ trusted global sources.
Download on the AppStore Get it on Google Play