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 and Kevin Rawlinson

Brexit debate between May and Corbyn will not go ahead – as it happened

We’re closing down this live blog now – thanks for reading. Here’s our main story, which covers the day’s events:

And, if you’d like to read our full coverage of the decision to scrap Sunday’s proposed TV debate, that’s here:

Updated

Members of the European Parliament are watching the Brexit debates with mounting dismay with many hoping – some would say praying – next week’s vote will pave the way to a second referendum.

This is not a moment MEPs ever wanted and, increasingly, the rthetoic is reflecting it. Stelios Koulouglou, who represents Greece’s ruling leftist Syriza party in the European Parliament, told the Guardian:

Theresa May has a last chance to save her country and her political career. She has to tell the British parliament and the people of Great Britain that this is a disaster and we have to change course and hold a new referendum. Of course, that means confronting Brexiters but she is going to have to do that anyway because they are not satisfied with the deal she has come up with.

A lot of us here [in Brussels] hold the view that it is better to die heroically that go down this way ... As things stand, she seems to be losing control completely.

During the Brexit debate in the Commons on Tuesday, the Conservative MP Philip Dunne asked Corbyn to “explain to the House why he has not got the courage to debate” the prime minister on Sunday. Corbyn responded:

I am quite happy to debate with the prime minister. I notice she was not very keen to debate with anybody during the general election, but we understand that.

Updated

It is understood Downing Street preferred the BBC’s proposed format, which would have involved a panel of experts and representatives of smaller parties. Labour was happy with ITV’s offer of a head-to-head debate between Theresa May and Jeremy Corbyn, hosted by Julie Etchingham.

Reacting to the news the debate has been cancelled, a Labour spokeswoman said:

Theresa May is once again running scared of debating Jeremy Corbyn, just as she did in the general election. Jeremy Corbyn accepted the prime minister’s offer of a debate on Brexit immediately. He said he would relish the opportunity to debate her, and that remains the case.

Labour believed the head-to-head offer from ITV was the most straight forward format. A head-to-head would give viewers the greatest clarity and allow both speakers to get into detail.

The prime minister has refused to join Jeremy in a head-to-head debate. Her team tried to confuse people with a convoluted format. But the British public will see this for what it is – Theresa May unable to face real scrutiny over her crumbling deal.

On Sunday 25 November, Labour had said Corbyn would “relish a head-to-head debate with Theresa May”.

Updated

Brexit debate off – ITV

ITV says it has scrapped plans to host a televised Brexit debate between Theresa May and Jeremy Corbyn on Sunday. Confirming the debate would not go ahead, an ITV spokeswoman said:

ITV invited the prime minister and the leader of the opposition to appear in a programme this Sunday evening and we have been clear that it is up to those invited to decide whether they want to accept the invitation.

ITV is developing its plans for covering the build-up and reaction to the crucial Commons vote next Tuesday, and a range of voices and opinions will be represented on the subject of Brexit in our output.

Updated

Afternoon summary

I have heard that we have nothing to fear from no deal—nothing, that is, except a cliff-edge Brexit in just four months’ time; the end of frictionless trade with our biggest export market; restrictions on our citizens travelling in Europe; and being the only developed economy in the world trading with the EU on purely WTO terms with no customs facilitation agreements, no data sharing or protection agreements and no approvals regime to allow our industries to trade with their nearest customers and suppliers—just tariffs, paperwork and bureaucracy.

UK car exports would face tariffs of 10%. Many clothing exports would face tariffs of 12%. Agricultural exports would face even higher tariffs. Almost 90% of UK beef exports and 95% of lamb exports go to the EU, where they could face tariffs of over 70% and 45% respectively ...

I do not believe that we can afford the economic cost of a no-deal exit.

  • Sir Graham Brady, chair of the Conservative backbench 1922 Committee, has said that unless Theresa May can provide more clarity on how the UK can leave the backstop, the Brexit vote should be postponed. (See 4.26pm.)

That’s all from me for today.

Thanks for the comments.

Updated

Watch the Tory chief whip trying to persuade Philip Davies to back May's Brexit deal

For 100 years or more, the post of chief whip has been one that carries a certain mystique. The “chief”, as the Tories call him, was someone credited with considerable, and faintly sinister, powers of persuasion. In the US version, the main character in House of Cards was the president. In the UK original, it was Francis Urquhart, the PM’s fictional vote fixer.

Julian Smith, the current chief whip, may have just eliminated that mystique in a trice. He has allowed ITV to do some behind-the-scenes filming about his efforts to win next week’s vote, and it includes this footage of him trying to win over the hardline Brexiter Philip Davies in his office. There is no sign of thumbscrews, real or metaphorical. Instead Davies seems to be completely in charge of the conversation, and Smith is left almost tongue-tied. Perhaps he can be persuasive on other occasions, but he doesn’t look like it here. Urquhart would be appalled.

A “not” got left out of an earlier post, which I have now corrected. The Tory MP Johnny Mercer told MPs he would not back the Brexit deal. (See 5.15pm.)

And here are some highlights from the Lords Brexit debate.

Lord Trimble, the former Ulster Unionist leader and an architect of the Good Friday agreement who is now a Conservative peer, said Theresa May’s deal had “perverse” implications for Northern Ireland and had to go. He said:

It’s not the desire to leave the EU that’s causing the damage, it’s what the EU is doing by way of reprisal ...

If we don’t kill the backstop and this agreement now, it’s going to haunt us for years, decades, maybe even for generations as well.

Lord Armstrong of Ilminster, the former cabinet secretary, signalled his support for a second referendum. He said:

I do not think that it is undemocratic to believe that the British people are entitled to be given the opportunity of changing their minds if they wish to do so in the light of all that has happened and all that has become known since June 2016. I also suspect that most of the British public are bored stone cold with Brexit and would like to see it go away altogether.

London Mayor Sadiq Khan (left) meeting the Irish taoiseach Leo Varadkar at Government Buildings in Dublin earlier today.
London Mayor Sadiq Khan (left) meeting the Irish taoiseach Leo Varadkar at Government Buildings in Dublin earlier today. Photograph: Brian Lawless/PA

Here are some highlights from the Commons Brexit debate this afternoon.

The Conservative MP Johnny Mercer said he would not back Theresa May’s deal. He said:

I say to the prime minister ‘we must try again’, I don’t want no deal, and I’m afraid I believe that a second referendum would open up divisions in this country that frankly me and a lot of others in this country are sick of.

This is a seminal moment, and we must be extremely careful to get this right.

But Tom Tugendhat, the Conservative chairman of the foreign affairs committee, said he would reluctantly back the deal. He said he could not support a second referendum or a no-deal Brexit. He went on:

I’m left really with only one choice.

Now I don’t say this with any joy but it is not our role to shirk responsibility, it’s not our role to avoid decisions but it’s our role to take them.

When I have excluded the impossible I’m left with only one and that, I have to say, with a very heavy heart.

Updated

There was a flurry of excitement in the office a moment ago when Sky News went live to Downing Street, where the PM was about to appear. But there no resignation statement; she was just turning on the Christmas tree lights.

Theresa May joins children to switch on the Christmas tree lights outside 10 Downing Street
Theresa May joins children to switch on the Christmas tree lights outside 10 Downing Street Photograph: Ben Stansall/AFP/Getty Images

Still, it’s got the Twitter commentariat going ...

Here is the Commons online Hansard for today’s debate. The speeches go up about three hours after they have been delivered, and currently it is up to Stewart Hosie.

Sky’s Beth Rigby has more on Theresa May’s meeting with cabinet ministers early.

Tory 1922 Committee chair Graham Brady says May should delay vote unless she can provide more clarity on backstop

Sir Graham Brady, chairman of the Conservative backbench 1922 Committee, has told BBC’s Newsnight that, unless Theresa May can provide more clarity on how the UK can leave the backstop, the Brexit vote should be postponed.

Staying in EU more popular than May's deal or no deal Brexit, YouGov survey suggests

A few minutes ago in the Commons Sir Christopher Chope, a Tory Brexiter, confirmed that he would vote against Theresa May’s deal. Ironically his speech came only a few hours after YouGov released some new polling suggesting that Chope’s constituency, Christchurch, is one of only two in the Great Britain where voters favour May’s deal over no deal, or staying in the EU.

There have been a lot of Brexit opinion polls, but this one is probably more interesting than most because a) it has a huge sample size (more than 20,000 Britons were polled) and b) it used MRP (multi-level regression and poststratification), a technique that involves using large amounts of demographic data to predict how voters will behave in particular constituencies. YouGov used MRP before the 2017 general election to predict a hung parliament when conventional polling had the Tories on course for a big victory.

Among other things, the YouGov research shows that, if there is going to be a second referendum with multiple options, there will be an almighty row about what election system should be used. People were asked if they wanted May’s deal, a no deal Brexit, or no Brexit at all. Staying in the EU had the support of 46% of respondents, and was the first preference option in 600 constituencies.

First preference Brexit options by constituency
First preference Brexit options by constituency Photograph: YouGov

But, using the Condorcet method (a system that ranks multiple options by testing them all out against each other one-to-one), you get a very different result. This system tends to favour the least unacceptable option, and May’s deal wins in most constituencies.

Brexit preferences, via Concordet method
Brexit preferences, via Concordet method Photograph: YouGov

The survey also finds that, in a straight contest between no deal and May’s deal, May’s deal would win comfortable. But remain versus no deal, and remain versus May’s deal, are both fairly evenly matched.

Brexit polling
Brexit polling Photograph: YouGov

Michael Gove, Amber Rudd, Andrea Leadsom and Liam Fox left Number 10 after their meeting with the PM (see 2.18pm) without answering reporters’ questions about the vote next week, the Press Association reports.

This is from the Sun’s Tom Newton Dunn.

Channel 4 has announced that broadcast a Brexit debate on Sunday. It will feature “four high profile politicians” (as yet unnamed) “reflecting the main divisions in the House of Commons on this issue, Theresa May’s Deal, a softer Brexit, a harder Brexit and People’s Vote/Remain”.

In the Commons debate Antoinette Sandbach, a Conservative, has said that she will vote for Theresa May’s Brexit deal. A pro-European, she was one of the 12 Tories who defied the party whip on the “meaningful vote” issue in December last year, triggering May’s first Commons defeat on Brexit. But she said he would back the deal because it honoured the referendum result. “It may not be perfect, but it is a good deal,” she said.

Blair praises parliament for acting as 'shadow government' over Brexit

Tony Blair has been speaking at a press gallery lunch. As prime minister, he was notorious for being lukewarm about parliament as an institution. He said as much in his final PMQs. But, in his speech to journalists, he said that parliament was now operating “like a shadow government” over Brexit, and that he was “heartily thankful”.

For the first time in my political memory, parliament is operating like a shadow government. It has taken effective charge of the process surrounding Brexit through the Grieve amendment, ensuring that all options can be voted upon. It has asserted itself with a vigour and clarity of purpose frankly missing from the actual government. It is articulating the different outcomes with a blatant disregard for the government mantra that it is this deal or no deal.

I am heartily thankful that parliament is doing so. There is as much leadership on the back benches as on the front. At a moment of supreme importance for the nation, with so much at stake and such bitter divisions in the population, they’re doing what I always hoped they would do: behave like leaders, recognising that at this time, party whips can’t matter more than genuine appreciation of where the national interest lies.

He also included a self-deprecatory “third way” joke.

As I have discovered every time I address groups of people on Brexit, on one thing the nation is united: do Brexit; or don’t; but no half in and half out. This is a sentiment which unites many leavers and remainers. It is a belief that Britain should determine its path to the future with confidence one way or another, not remain lost in nervous indecision. There is no acceptable third way.

Mark Drakeford has been elected as the new Welsh Labour leader, replacing Carwyn Jones, ITV’s Adrian Masters reports.

Lib Dem MP Stephen Lloyd resigns party whip to back May's Brexit deal

The Lib Dem MP Stephen Lloyd has resigned the party whip because he is backing Theresa May’s Brexit deal, the party has announced.

A party spokesman said:

We respect what we know was a difficult decision for Stephen ahead of next week’s vote and are sorry to see him go. Liberal Democrats are clear that we will be voting against Theresa May’s deal.

The Liberal Democrats have campaigned for an exit from Brexit and a People’s Vote where people can choose to remain in the European Union since the referendum was held.

We will continue to fight for this in parliament.

Ben Weisz from BBC Sussex has more.

The Eastbourne Herald has a full story here.

The Lib Dems only have, or had, 12 MPs. So Vince Cable has lost 8.3% of his party. That would be equivalent to Theresa May losing 26 MPs, or Jeremy Corbyn losing 21 of his.

My colleague Jessica Elgot has more on the cabinet minsters going into Number 10 to see Theresa May. (See 1.52pm.)

On the subject of the value of trade deals, it is worth flagging up this chart from the government’s Brexit economic impact analysis (pdf) - which confirms that the government does disagree with David Davis. (See 2.02pm.)

It shows how, under various Brexit options, some economic factors would be good for growth (they are the shaded blocks above the line) and others would be bad for growth (the ones below the line). The gains to the economy from new trade deals are relatively minuscule compared to the extra costs generated by the UK being outside the single market or the customs union.

Impact of different Brexit scenarios
Impact of different Brexit scenarios Photograph: EU Exit paper

Updated

David Davis, the former Brexit secretary, is speaking in the Commons now. He says that, while a no-deal Brexit would create some difficulties, it would not be as bad as some people claim.

He says trade through Calais would continue. And, if there were problems, up to 40% of trade could be diverted to other ports, he says.

He says he is sorry Philip Hammond, the chancellor, is not in the chamber now. He says he and Hammond disagree on the value of trade deals. Hammond does not think they deliver “a big bang for your buck”. Davis says he disagrees, and that trade deals have had a very big impact on growth in the last 40 years.

In the Commons debate Sir Nicholas Soames, the Conservative pro-European, spoke after John McDonnell. He said that he voted remain, but that he thought the referendum result had to be honoured and was backing Theresa May’s deal because it did that.

He was followed by the SNP’s Stewart Hosie, who said that every single Brexit outcome would be bad for the country. Borrowing the language used by May about Scottish independence, he said that there was “no positive case for Brexit”, that “now is not the time for Brexit”, and that “Brexit must be taken off the table”.

Updated

This is from my colleague Jessica Elgot.

Government considering what help it might offer Britons living in EU if they're forced to move home after no-deal Brexit

The Brexit department has today published a paper (pdf) saying what the government would do to protect the rights of EU nationals in the UK and British citizens in the EU in the event of a no-deal Brexit.

In a written ministerial statement announcing the publication of the document, Stephen Barclay, the Brexit secretary, says the government is considering what it could do to help Britons living in the EU with access to benefits and housing if they have to return to the UK after a no-deal Brexit because they cannot stay where they are living now. He says:

If UK nationals in the EU were unable to continue to live their lives in the EU as they do now in a no deal scenario and returned to the UK to live, there are a number of steps the government would consider to address concerns that they have raised. This includes access to healthcare, education, benefits, and housing. We recognise that these would be an important part of a transition back to life in the UK.

The document does not say what help the government might provide with housing but, on benefits, it says “arrangements will be made to ensure continuity of payments for those who return and are already in receipt of UK state pension or other UK benefits while living in the EU”.

Stephen Barclay
Stephen Barclay Photograph: Mark Thomas/REX/Shutterstock

The European court of justice has posted more on Twitter about the decision to announce its ruling in the article 50 case on Monday.

This is from Sky’s Beth Rigby.

The UK supreme court won’t deliver its judgement whether the Scottish and Welsh government’s emergency Brexit legislation breaches the law until after MPs stage their crucial vote on May’s deal next week.

The supreme court announced it would hand down its decision on the so-called “continuity bills” passed by the devolved legislatures on Thursday 13 December, effectively leaving MPs in the dark on whether those bills were legally valid or not when they decide whether to back Brexit or not next Tuesday. It heard the legal challenge by the UK government in July.

By contrast the European court of justice will issue its judgement on 10 December, only two weeks after holding an emergency hearing on whether article 50 could be unilaterally revoked, in a case brought by a cross-party group of Scottish parliamentarians.

The UK, Scottish and Welsh governments are at loggerheads over whether the devolved legislation is permissible, because it gives both legislatures legal powers over repatriating EU legislation.

The UK government insists that is ultra vires, since foreign treaties are reserved to Westminster; Nicola Sturgeon, the Scottish first minister, and her former Welsh counterpart, Carwyn Jones, accused UK ministers of a “power grab” for taking control of some policy areas.

Ken Clarke, the Conservative former chancellor, asks what McDonnell means by Labour collaborating with the single market. Is Labour advocating full regulatory convergence?

McDonnell says Labour wants a permanent customs union, with the UK having a say in future EU trade deals. He says Labour wants close collaboration with the single market. That would be its opening negotiating position, he says.

Alex Chalk, a Conservative, intervenes. He says Labour would keep the UK in the customs union permanently. But it would not be in the single market, and so under Labour’s plan a backstop would still be needed, he says.

McDonnell says that Labour would organise comprehensive customs union deal with the EU and that this would make it “so much more unlikely” that a backstop would be need. He says the “permanence” of the agreement would also help.

  • McDonnell appears to concede that a backstop might be needed under Labour’s Brexit plans. The general Labour line has been to argue that there would be no need for a backstop under its plans. But, when pressed on this, McDonnell just said that Labour’s plans would make a customs union “much more unlikely”.

Boris Johnson, the Brexiter former foreign secretary, agrees with my colleague Daniel Boffey. (See 10.41am.)

McDonnell says, under the government’s deal, every region of the UK, every sector, and every household will suffer.

McDonnell says the financial services industry were offered “enhanced equivalence” agreements. But they have not got that, he says.

The Conservative MP Vicky Ford intervenes. She says what the political declaration (pdf) says about financial services on page 9 amounts to enhanced equivalence.

McDonnell says he does not accept that.

The DUP’s Ian Paisley intervenes. Would Labour drop the backstop?

McDonnell says he will address this later in the speech. But under Labour’s plan for the UK to stay in the customs unions, and for a close relationship with the single market, a backstop would not be necessary, he claims.

This is from the Telegraph’s Michael Deacon.

UPDATE: Here’s the clip.

Updated

John McDonnell, the shadow chancellor, is speaking now.

He says he wants to stress four point.

First, a no deal Brexit must be avoided

Second, Theresa May’s deal is not acceptable to MPs.

Third, Labour’s plan would honour the result of the referendum, while being good for jobs.

Fourth, it is important to consider the impact on communities.

The SNP’s Angus MacNeil asks McDonnell what he would choose: no deal, or no Brexit.

McDonnell says he does not accept that choice. He says the government will soon have to accept the need for an alternative approach.

Hammond says the UK has to make its choice as a nation.

After two and a half years, it is time to choose. This deal will ensure the UK can move forward as a nation, he says.

He says this deal will set the UK on course for a prosperous future.

Hammond says UK cannot afford economic costs of a no deal Brexit

Hammond is close to winding up now.

He says MPs need to act now, to end divisions and uncertainty.

But what if they do not? Some people claim the UK has nothing to fear from a no deal Brexit. But there would be restrictions on Britons travelling in the EU. And Britain would be the only major economy trading with the EU on WTO terms, he says.

He says this would generate tariffs and paperwork.

Cars would face tariffs of 10%, clothing 12%, and agricultural goods would face even higher tariffs.

He says 90% of beef exports and and 95% of lamb exports to go the EU. They would face tariffs of 70% and 45% respectively.

I do not believe we can afford the economic costs of a no deal Brexit.

But he says he also does not believe the UK can afford the society costs of ignoring the results of the referendum.

Philip Hammond
Philip Hammond Photograph: Parliament TV

The Times’ Sam Coates has got hold of the note distributed by the Tory whips ahead of today’s debate to encourage helpful interventions.

Jo Johnson, who resigned as a transport minister because he is opposed to the Brexit deal, intervenes. He asks Hammond to accept that Theresa May’s deal is also bad for the financial services sector. He says the government’s economic analysis shows it will end up 6% smaller than it otherwise would have been.

Hammond says there is no Brexit deal available that would allow the financial services industry to keep passporting (the arrangement that allows firms to trade freely in the EU).

Although the UK will not have an influence in future on the shaping of EU financial regulations, it will influence global decisions about regulations - which will in turn have an influence on the EU, he says.

Ken Clarke, the Conservative former chancellor, intervenes. Does he accept that remaining in the EEA would preserve the economic benefits of EU membership, if not the political benefits?

Hammond accepts that point. But he says there are two main problems with this proposal. First, the UK would have to accept free movement. And, second, the financial services industry would have to comply with a lot of fast-changing EU regulations over which it would have no control.

Hammond says Labour's Brexit aspirations 'deluded'

Hammond says Labour are “deluded” if they think they can get a Brexit deal delivering all the benefits of being in the EU, with no payments to the EU, no state aid rules, and no free movement.

The only way of obtaining all the benefits of being in the EU is by staying in the EU, he says.

Labour wants to stay in the customs union. But that would not deliver benefits like a frictionless border, he says.

Hammond says he expects the economy to grow after Brexit, under all scenarios.

And he says the government Brexit economic analysis (pdf) released last week did not contain forecasts. Instead it was a modelling exercise, showing how different types of Brexit compared.

He says the Chequers plan scenario would produce more growth than all the other scenarios modelled.

Hammond says that, if the UK has to make a choice between extending the transition (or implementation period, as he puts it, using the government’s preferred phrase) or going into the backstop, he would favour extending the transition.

Hammond says it is 'delusion' to think Brexit deal can be renegotiated at 11th hour

Hammond says he has observed this process closely for two years. The idea that renegotiating the deal at the 11th hour is possible is “a delusion”, he says.

He says this is the best deal on the table. Only the compromise set out in the deal would allow the UK to move on.

Divided nations are not successful nations, he says.

As Hammond starts, Labour’s Clive Betts intervenes and asks Hammond about something he told the Treasury committee yesterday. Betts said Hammond used to say that leaving the EU would be bad for the economy. But now he is saying it would be better to leave than to hold a referendum and stay. Why did he change his mind?

Hammond says he has always been clear that leaving the EU would have economic disadvantages, But he says he thinks the wider impact of ignoring the EU referendum result would be worse.

Before the debate started Boris Johnson apologised to the Commons for breaching the rules by declaring some royalty payments late. (See 10.54am.)

Philip Hammond opens third day of Brexit debate

Philip Hammond, the chancellor, is about to open the third day of the Brexit debate.

John Bercow, the speaker, starts by saying 75 MPs want to speak in the debate today.

Sadiq Khan says May should withdraw article 50 if she loses Brexit vote

In a speech in Dublin today Sadiq Khan, the Labour mayor of London, is saying that Theresa May should withdraw article 50 if she loses the Brexit vote next week. According to extracts released in advance, he is saying:

The worst possible outcome – which remains a grave concern given the political uncertainty in Westminster - is that the UK leaves the EU with no Brexit deal at all.

This would not only be devastating for London’s economy, but would actually hurt businesses and economies across Europe – including here in Dublin – and increase the chance of a hard border on the island of Ireland.

In my view, the prospect – the very notion – of a no deal Brexit must be taken off the table by the British government.

It’s just too dangerous to leave as a possibility.

That’s why – today – I’m calling on Theresa May to withdraw article 50 if the British Parliament rejects her deal next week, which is looking extremely likely.

This move would be the single best way to guarantee that we avoid falling off the cliff edge.

It would stop the clock that is ticking down towards a no deal Brexit, and it would provide the breathing space to decide how we resolve this mess.

If the British prime minister refuses to take this precautionary step – we would continue heading towards a no-deal Brexit in just a few months’ time – and would risk us having to explain to future generations why the government of the day knowingly put our economy, our prosperity and our place on the world stage in such grave peril.

It is worth stressing that Khan is calling for article 50 to be revoked in the event of May losing the vote. That is not the same as asking for article 50 to be extended. Extending it would delay Brexit beyond 29 March. Withdrawing it would cancel Brexit altogether.

Under the Lisbon treaty, article 50 can be extended, with the unanimous agreement of all EU member states.

On Monday the European court of justice will give a definitive ruling on whether the UK can revoke article 50 unilaterally. Earlier this week the court’s advocate general issued an opinion (pdf) saying a state could revoke article 50 unilaterally. Opinions like this are normally a reliable guide to what the court will decide, and if the ECJ follows the advice of its advocate general, then Khan’s proposal will in theory be do-able.

But the article 50 case was mostly about a country that changes its mind about leaving the EU. Khan says the UK should withdraw article 50 to give itself more time to take a decision. During the ECJ hearing the lawyer for the European council expressed concern about the possibility of a country being allowed to withdraw article 50 as a negotiating tactic and, in his opinion (pdf), the advocate general said the right to revoke article 50 should be subject to “certain conditions and limits” in order to “prevent abuse of the procedure”. It is not clear whether or not revoking article 50 just to “stop the clock” would count as such an abuse.

Another problem is that, under the EU Withdrawal Act, the UK will be leaving the EU’s legal regime on 29 March anyway. To stop Brexit, as well as revoking article 50, the PM would have to repeal all or part of that Act.

Sadiq Khan
Sadiq Khan Photograph: Victoria Jones/PA

David Mundell has admitted he dropped his threat to resign over the Northern Ireland backstop because he needs to shore up Theresa May’s beleaguered Brexit deal and prevent her government collapsing.

The Scottish secretary and his close ally Ruth Davidson threatened to resign in October over the backstop, telling May in writing: “We could not support any deal that creates a border of any kind in the Irish Sea [or] leads to Northern Ireland having a different relationship with the EU than the rest of the UK, beyond what currently exists.”

In a press conference today he was challenged on whether the planned backstop failed that test.

The previously-secret legal advice on Brexit issued to the cabinet by Geoffrey Cox, the attorney general, said that if the backstop were implemented, Northern Ireland would remain in the EU single market while the rest of the UK would not. Cox warned this meant: “GB is essentially treated as a third country by NI for goods passing from GB to NI”. Nigel Dodds, the Democratic Unionist party MP, claimed that would erect trade barriers within the UK and was “economically mad”.

Mundell said he had had to make a judgement call:

What I have said is that if you weigh up what is the greatest threat to the integrity of the UK. My judgement is that is having a no deal Brexit or a chaotic exit from the EU and I regard that as the most unsatisfactory possible outcome in terms of standing up for the integrity of the UK.

Now that is a judgement; I accept I have made that judgement.

I have looked in detail at the proposals for Northern Ireland. I have been quite clear that I’m not totally comfortable with those arrangements but what I tried to set in context in my speech is the practical impact of those arrangements compared to the arrangements that currently exist [by preserving similar rules for farming, food and industrial products] … so I believe in the balance, if your prime motivation is to ensure the integrity of the UK then that is to stop a no deal Brexit.

The Scottish National party MSP Tom Arthur likened Mundell’s stance to the contortions used during the Iraq war by “Comical Ali”, Saddam Hussein’s former information minister, Mohammed Saeed al-Sahhaf, by claiming black was white. Arthur said:

David Mundell is increasingly delusional and is fast becoming the Comical Ali of Brexit. The UK government’s legal advice confirms what we already knew – that Theresa May’s deal doesn’t just breach Mundell’s red line, it demolishes it.

David Mundell delivering a speech in London this morning.
David Mundell delivering a speech in London this morning. Photograph: Facundo Arrizabalaga/EPA

Boris Johnson ordered to apologise to Commons for not declaring outside payments on time

Boris Johnson, the former foreign secretary, has been reprimanded by the Commons standards watchdog for failing to register payments he has received on time. Most of them were royalties from books. There were nine late declarations, of payments worth a total of £52,722.80.

In a report to the Commons standards committee, Kathryn Stone, the parliamentary commissioner for standards, says:

Most of the late registrations are of payments which might reasonably be regarded as unpredictable, in the form of royalties and payments arising from the sale of books already written. However, these payments cannot have been entirely unexpected and, given that the House has made explicit that it expects members to fulfil their responsibilities “conscientiously”, it would have been prudent for Mr Johnson to have had an administrative system in place to ensure his compliance with those rules. It appears that he did not arrange that until after I had begun my inquiry.

Although Mr Johnson has told me that the late registrations were “inadvertent”, the fact that the late registrations had happened on four separate occasions and involved nine payments, suggests a lack of attention to, or regard for, the House’s requirements rather than oversight or inadvertent error.

In its own report, the standards committee says Johnson should apologise to the Commons for breaking its rules. The committee says:

We conclude that Mr Johnson breached the rules of the House by failing to register remuneration within the required timetable on nine occasions.

We recommend that Mr Johnson should make an apology to the House, on a point of order, for this breach of the rules. We recommend that in that apology he should address the specific comments we make in this report, and that he should undertake to ensure that his future registrations of remuneration are made in a timely way.

Boris Johnson speaking in the Commons on Tuesday.
Boris Johnson speaking in the Commons on Tuesday. Photograph: HO/AFP/Getty Images

Updated

Daniel Boffey on what the PM did not say about EU's role in extending transition

The prime minister was not being entirely frank in her interview on the Today programme, and the reality of the situation will do little to calm parliamentary concerns about her deal. In an attempt to peel off some Brexiters to her deal, Theresa May suggested in her morning interview that going into the backstop would be a choice made by the UK six months before the end of the transition period, set to last until the end of 2020.

She suggested that the British government could opt for an alternative at this decision making point in July 2020 - and that would be an extension of the transition period. May further offered parliament a role in deciding whether to extend the transition period or to go into the backstop solution for avoiding a hard border on the island of Ireland. The backstop involves the whole of the UK remaining in a customs union with the EU for an indefinite period, without the unilateral right to get out.

Unfortunately, the prime minister did not mention the decisive role of the EU at the ‘rendezvous’ point.

In reality, the withdrawal agreement states that a joint EU-UK committee will decide whether an extension of the transition period “by up to one or two years” is to be triggered.

The EU’s position on this will be decided, in effect, by unanimity of its member states as the bloc’s 27 heads of state and government have been given the say, according to a document published at the November summit. The leaders never vote, but seek to come to a decision by consensus.

This would allow a country concerned, for example, about the lack of a satisfactory agreement on fisheries, to block an extension of the transition period. The French president, Emmanuel Macron, has already suggested that he might be willing to do such a thing.

Should an extension be blocked by the EU, the default position would be for the UK to fall into the indefinite customs union envisaged in the backstop in the withdrawal agreement.

But it gets worse. For disputes between the EU and the UK after the transition period ends, there is the possibility for the UK to appeal to an independent arbitration body if it feels that the bloc has not acted in good faith.

But during the transition period - and that includes at the pivotal ‘rendezvous point’ - the UK’s only recourse in the case of a dispute will be to the EU’s court, the European court of justice. There is no independent arbitration panel to which the British government can appeal.

Parliamentarians may well be given a say on British government policy with regard to triggering a transition extension or falling into the backstop. But the reality is that the UK will once again be beholden on the EU to agree. They may well not. And it will be the EU’s court that will be the final arbiter.

My colleague Rafeal Behr has posted a good threat on what might happen next with Brexit. “Sanity could still fall through the gaps,” he concludes (rightly, imho). The thread starts here.

Anne-Marie Trevelyan, a Tory Brexiter, has dismissed Theresa May’s proposal for MPs to get a vote on whether or not the UK enters the backstop or extends the transition as “just hot air”, ITV’s Paul Brand reports.

ECJ to rule on whether UK can revoke article 50 unilaterally on Monday morning

The European court of justice has announced that it will deliver its judgment in the article 50 case at 8am UK time on Monday. This will be the ruling that will clarify whether or not the UK can revoke article 50 unilaterally.

Earlier this week’s the court’s advocate general delivered an opinion saying that the UK could revoke article 50 unilaterally. These opinions are normally, but not inevitably, a guide to the the court’s final decision.

CET is central European time, which is one hour ahead of GMT.

Theresa May's Today interview - Summary

Here are the main points from Theresa May’s Today interview.

  • May suggested that she could promise MPs a vote on whether to extend the transition or enter the backstop if one of those options becomes necessary. The withdrawal agreement says that, if he customs arrangements coming into force after the transition is due to end in December 2020 won’t avoid a hard border in Northern Ireland, it will be up to the UK government to choose between extending the transition or entering the backstop. In her interview May said that she was “looking at the question of the role of parliament in that choice”. She went on:

There will be a choice between, if we get to that point, a choice between going into the backstop and extending the transition period.

Now, there are pros and cons of both sides of that.

People have a concern of the backstop, that we could be in it indefinitely.

But in the backstop we have no financial obligations, we have no free movement, we have very light level playing field rules with the EU.

In the implementation period, we still have to negotiate the terms, but, there will be concerns about the fact that they would require, I’m sure they would require, some more money to be paid, for example.

So there would be arguments on different sides.

This offer has limited significance because it is hard to imagine that parliament would not have been consulted anyway about a decision like this. In fact, the government’s 56-page document (pdf) explaining what the withdrawal agreement means says as much. It says (bold type added by me):

Whether it would be preferable for the backstop to come into effect for a temporary period, or to request a temporary extension of the implementation period, will be a sovereign choice for the UK government. This would allow the UK government, with an appropriate role for parliament, to consider the right approach in the national interest.

  • She played down reports that she might postpone the vote on Tuesday. Asked about this, she did not categorically say that the vote would go ahead on Tuesday night, but she said:

We are in the middle of five days of debate in parliament which will lead up to a vote on this issue.

That questions was prompted by today’s Times splash, which says that Gavin Williamson, the defence secretary, and other cabinet ministers are urging May to postpone the vote.

But, as Jack Blanchard points out in his London Playbook briefing, to postpone the vote now May would have to pass a new business motion, which would involve another vote.

  • She repeatedly claimed that there were just three possible outcomes: her deal passing, the UK leaving the EU with no deal, or no Brexit.
  • She claimed that it was for her critics, not her, to come up with a “plan B”.
  • She said she hoped to be invited onto the Today programmes “more times” as prime minister.
Theresa May on the Today programme
Theresa May on the Today programme Photograph: Sky News

Updated

And here are some general Twitter comments on the interview from journalists.

From the Evening Standard’s Kate Proctor

From the Observer’s Sonia Sodha

From Paul Mason, the former Channel 4 News and Newsnight broadcaster

From Philip Webster, the former Times political editor

From my colleague John Crace

Here is some comment from journalists on the PM’s hint that she might offer MPs a vote on whether the extend the transition as an alternative to the backstop, should that prove necessary. (See 8.50am.)

They are not impressed.

From Newsnight’s Nicholas Watt

From the Financial Times’ George Parker

From the Sunday Times’ Tim Shipman

There are reports around yesterday that Theresa May was considering promising MPs that, if the UK gets to the point in 2020 where the backstop might be needed (because the customs arrangements coming into force after the transition ends in December 2020 won’t avoid a hard border in Northern Ireland), they will get to choose whether the UK enters the backstop or extends the transition. Both options are allowed under the withdrawal agreement. What May did this morning was confirm in her own words what her aides were briefing yesterday.

Laura Kuenssberg is right to say that Tory Brexiters are unlikely to be impressed. This is what one of them, Nigel Evans, said about the suggestion in the debate yesterday.

I have heard a rumour that the prime minister is thinking about a change, by saying that parliament should be able to vote on putting us into the backstop, and giving parliament that power. I do not want that power. Getting into the backstop is not the problem; it is getting out that is the problem. That is where this parliament needs to be able to make a decision—the decision to say, “Thank you. We’re leaving.”

In the Today programme’s post-match analysis, the BBC’s political editor, Laura Kuenssberg, pours a bucket of cold water over the PM’s plan. (See 8.35am.) It is unlikely to win around many of her critics, she says.

She also says that May was wrong to say there are only three options: her deal, no deal, or no Brexit. There is increasing support at Westminster for a fourth option - parliament taking control (via the Grieve amendment).

I will post a summary and reaction soon.

May hints she could promise MPs vote on whether to extend transition as alternative to entering backstop

Q: So what is the new idea? What might MPs do?

May says there are questions about how decisions are taken about whether the UK goes in to the backstop. It is not automatic. At the point it becomes necessary, when the future relationship is being negotiated, there is a choice between going into the backtop and extending the transition. Under the deal the UK could choose which of those options it would use. The terms of extending the transition would have to be negotiated. She is exploring what the role of parliament might be.

  • May hints that MPs could be given a vote on whether to extend the transition as an alternative if the backstop became necessary.

She says there are pros and cons to both sides.

People are worried about the backstop lasting indefinitely. But there would be no payments to the EU and no free movement, and only light regulatory controls.

Q: So you could be back here in the future discussing this.

May says she hopes to be back. Unlike Jeremy Corbyn, she does give interviews to the Today programme. She would like to be able to discuss other things too.

And that’s it.

Q: If, on Tuesday, parliament says no to you, are you going to say, ‘That’s it, there has to be a hard Brexit’.

May says they are in the middle of the debate. She is listening to colleagues.

Q: But you have given nothing to them. They say you just keep repeating the same mantra.

May says people are concerned that the EU could hold the UK in the backstop.

Q: How would your new proposal work?

May says that is what she is talking about at the moment.

But she says the backstop would not be automatic.

Q: A lot of people think you have worked hard on this. But they think you are not listening to other arguments.

May says she has been listening.

That is why she has been careful about elements of the withdrawal agreement and the future relationship.

For example, she has listened carefully to the concerns of fishermen. She has “rigorously and robustly” defended their interests in the talks.

She returns to the point about there being three options. She does not want to see parliament in some way frustrating Brexit.

May says MPs will not just be considering the withdrawal agreement.

Q: It is one step at a time.

They both come together, says May.

Q: You must have given a lot of thought to what happens if you lose the vote. Have you? And give us a clue what plan B might be?

May says she is focused on the deal, that does deliver on the referendum while protecting jobs and security.

Alongside the withdrawal agreement is a political declaration on the future.

She says, for most listeners, what will make a difference is the future relationship. She has negotiated a partnership that would involve having a good, friendly relationship with Europe.

Q: What happens next? Should there be another referendum?

No, says May. She does not think that. She says parliament put the question to the people. It should accept the answer.

She says a lot of people who want a second referendum hope there will be a different answer. She does not think that is right.

She says they are not just opposed to this deal. They are “trying to frustrate Brexit”.

  • May says those backing a second referendum are opposed not just to her deal, but to the whole idea of Brexit.

Humphrys quotes two senior Tory peers, Lord King and Lord Howard, opposing the deal.

Q: To some people it seems you are not listening?

May says the future relationship is about where the UK will be in the future.

This deal is clear about taking back sovereignty, she says.

Q: Geoffrey Cox said as a result of the backstop you won’t be taking back control.

May says Cox did not say that.

The backstop is something no one wants in the first place.

If it looks like it might be needed, the UK will have a choice (because it could extend the transition instead.)

Q: Cox says the UK will not be able to leave the backstop unilaterally.

May accepts that.

Q: So how are we reclaiming sovereignty.

May says that is part of the withdrawal agreement.

She says she has also negotiated a text on the future agreement.

May says it is up to her opponents to propose a 'plan B'

Q: You have not been able to persuade enough of your colleagues to back the deal. It is highly likely to be voted down. Do you have a plan B?

May says that question is for those who oppose the deal.

  • May says it is up to her opponents to propose a “plan B”.

There is a risk of Brexit not happening, she says. She says she is clear that must not happen.

May says there are three options: leaving the EU with a deal, leaving with no deal, or having no Brexit at all.

She is clear that she will deliver on the referendum, and the vote to leave.

Q: But you don’t have enough support to win?

May says we have not had the vote yet.

She repeats the three options point.

She says some people want to frustrate Brexit. That is not right.

Q: Would you give MPs a separate vote on the backstop?

May says having a backstop would be an integral part of any deal.

Theresa May's Today interview

John Humphrys starts by asking if Theresa May will delay the vote.

May says we are in the middle of five days of debate, which will lead up to a vote.

They are voting on a deal that she has negotiated, she says.

Part of it is about withdrawal from the EU. But the other part is about the future.

She says he deal delivers on ending free movement, stopping the UK sending vast sums of money to the EU every year, and stopping the UK being subject to EU laws.

On the backstop, she says any deal would need one.

No other plan delivers on the referendum.

Q: Is there any possibility of the vote being delayed?

May says what she is doing is leading up to a vote on Tuesday.

She says she has talked to colleagues, but not about delaying the vote.

  • May plays down prospect of next Tuesday’s vote being delayed.

Among the rituals facing the prime minister at a moment of great national importance is an interview on the Today programme. Theresa May has taken countless questions on her Brexit plan in the Commons in recent weeks, but this morning John Humphrys is going to get his chance. The interview starts at 8.10am.

Here is our overnight story with the latest developments in May’s struggle to get MPs to back her deal, ahead of the big vote on Tuesday.

Here is the agenda for the day.

9.15am: David Mundell, the Scottish secretary, gives a speech Brexit.

9.30am: Stephen Barclay, the Brexit secretary, takes questions in the Commons.

Around 11.30am: Philip Hammond, the chancellor, opens day three of the Commons Brexit debate.

1pm: Tony Blair speaks at a press gallery lunch.

3pm: The Welsh Labour party announces the result of the election to choose a successor to Carwyn Jones, its leader. The three candidates are: Eluned Morgan, Vaughan Gething and Mark Drakeford.

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, although I will be focusing almost exclusively on Brexit.

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

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

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

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

Updated

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
Kelly Osbourne slams 'disgusting' body shamer after troll likens her look to 'dead body'
TV personality Kelly Osbourne has slammed a "disgusting" body shamer, after a troll claimed she was "too thin and fragile" and likened her look to "a dead body".
BANG Premier
BANG Premier
3 Dangerous Foods You Should Never Feed Your Cat
1. Onions and Garlic Onions, garlic, chives, leeks, and other members of the allium family are extremely toxic to cats. Even very small amounts whether raw cooked dried or powdered can damage your cat’s red blood cells and potentially lead to a dangerous condition called anemia. The scary part? Toxicity…
Times Pets
Times Pets
Why Are Kristen Bell's Nobody Wants This Co-Star And More Having To Defend Her Marriage To Dax Shepard?
There's a lot to this situation.
Cinemablend
Cinemablend
Luci4 Cause of Death Clouded in Suspicion With Foul Play Angle Explored by LA Police
The sudden death of rapper Luci4 has led to an investigation into possible foul play, leaving fans and family searching for answers.
International Business Times UK
International Business Times UK
New Spider-Man: Brand New Day Rumor Suggests One Villain Will Be Important For The Web-Slinger’s Future Films
Still. No. Trailer.
Cinemablend
Cinemablend
Reality check: America’s Next Top Model docuseries never apologises for abuse of contestants
If you’ve spent much time on the internet, you probably know how to yell “I was rooting for you!” The clip from “Cycle 4” (iykyk) of America’s Next Top Model which aired in 2005 went uncontrollably viral.
The Conversation
The Conversation
Fourteen days free
Download the app
One app. One membership.
100+ trusted global sources.
Download on the AppStore Get it on Google Play