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

Antisemitism row: NEC move 'right call' but 'long overdue', says Board of Deputies – as it happened

Demonstrators take part in protests outside a meeting of the National Executive of the Labour Party
Demonstrators take part in protests outside a meeting of the National Executive of the Labour Party Photograph: Dan Kitwood/Getty Images

And here is the Labour MP Margaret Hodge, who was threatened with disciplinary action by the party after telling Jeremy Corbyn his record on antisemitism meant he was antisemitic until the party dropped the action, on the NEC decision.

ITV’s Robert Peston says the NEC decision amounted to a rare defeat for Jeremy Corbyn.

Board of Deputies gives qualified welcome to NEC move, saying it's 'right call' but 'long overdue'

The Board of Deputies of British Jews has given a qualified welcome to the Labour NEC decision. Its statement is much more measured that the one from Labour Friends of Israel (see 5.52pm), although the Board of Deputies is still asking for an apology from Jeremy Corbyn.

Updated

But Kerry-Anne Mendoza, the editor-in-chief of the pro-Corbyn website, the Canary, says the reaction of the anti-Corbyn/pro-IHRA elements in Labour (see 5.52pm) shows that the NEC exercise has been a failure.

Peter Hain, the Labour peer who first made his name in national politics campaigning against apartheid, has welcomed the NEC decision.

NEC antisemitism statement does not go far enough, claim Corbyn critics

Labour Friends of Israel is not happy with the party’s new position.

And this is from Richard Angell, director of Progress, the centrist Labour organisation (rightwing in the eyes of its critics, but self-defined as “centre-left”). Angell said:

The Jewish community made it clear and simple to Labour: pass the IHRA definition in full – no caveats, no compromises. Jeremy Corbyn and the Momentum-dominated NEC have just failed the most basic test. A ‘right to be racist’ protection when debating the Middle East is not just wrong, it is harms the cause of peace but it will also continue a culture where Jewish people cannot feel at home in Labour.

Today’s decision is an insult. Labour does not know better than Jewish people about antisemitism.

The four hours it took for today’s retrograde step to appear shows there are committed anti-racists at Labour top table but those apathetic to antisemitism won out, again. The NEC has bought the Labour party into disrepute.

Updated

These are from the BBC’s Laura Kuenssberg.

The sentence quoted in Kuenssberg’s second tweet is significant because that would have meant that Labour was adopting the most controversial of the four IHRA examples not currently adopted by Labour wholesale - “denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavour” (see 10.16am for details) - but then also adopting an addendum to go with it saying almost the opposite: “It should not be considered antisemitic to describe, Israel, its policies or the circumstances around its foundation as racist because of their discriminatory impact, or to support another settlement of the Israel-Palestine conflict.”

The Labour briefing note circulated earlier this summer and quoted earlier (see 10.16am) explains why Labour has reservations about the “racist endeavour” example.

Here is my colleague Dan Sabbagh’s story on the NEC decision.

And this is how it starts.

Labour’s ruling body has agreed to adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s definition of antisemitism in full and issue a clarification emphasising the right to non-racist free speech when discussing Middle Eastern politics.

The national executive committee (NEC) accepted the IHRA definition with all 11 examples at a tense afternoon meeting where Jeremy Corbyn was present, in an attempt to end the long-running row about alleged antisemitism within the party.

ITV’s political editor, Robert Peston, has posted a snap verdict on the NEC decision on his Facebook page. Here’s an excerpt:

So with more of a whimper than a bang, and (some would say) after months of unnecessary self harm, Jeremy Corbyn and Labour’s ruling NEC have agreed to adopt the IHRA antisemitism definition in full, with all examples. Or so I am reliably told.

“Climbed down” - was the terse comment from one well-placed observer, who was referring to Corbyn ...

As I understand it, the NEC has adopted that wording. And presumably we will have a formal announcement to that effect later today.

If so, most Labour MPs and supporters will see that as significant progress towards reassuring the mainstream Jewish community that the party is now serious about cutting out the cancer of antisemitism.

That said, the proof will now be how and whether the adoption of the code leads Labour to take action against those perceived to have used the language of hate against Jews.

The Labour party has now put out a statement about the NEC decision. A spokesman said:

The NEC has today adopted all of the IHRA examples of antisemitism, in addition to the IHRA definition which Labour adopted in 2016, alongside a statement which ensures this will not in any way undermine freedom of expression on Israel or the rights of Palestinians.

The NEC welcomed Jeremy Corbyn’s statement to the meeting about action against antisemitism, solidarity with the Jewish community and protection of Palestinian rights, as an important contribution to the consultation on Labour’s code of conduct.

Labour agrees to accept IHRA antisemitism examples in full, with proviso

Turning back to Labour’s NEC meeting, there are been a decision, of sorts.

This is from ITV’s Robert Peston.

And this is from my colleague Dan Sabbagh.

Updated

Sir Keir Starmer, the shadow Brexit secretary, says something will have to give.

The October EU summit is 44 days away, he says.

He says when Raab last addressed MPs, he told them he expected a deal in October. But he has not repeated that today.

The deadline is now seen as November, he says. But that only gains an extra four weeks.

He says the government is now focusing increasingly on a no deal. Theresa May says it would “not be the end of the world”. That is not inspiring, he says.

Starmer says all this talk of a no deal “is not kidding anyone”. People are not reassured, he says.

He says the Northern Ireland border issue is very serious, and that it is irresponsible of Boris Johnson, the former foreign secretary, to say otherwise.

The government does not know how it will implement its promise to have a backstop, he says.

He says the talks are in serious trouble.

The government must change course, and put forward a credible plan that can break this impasse, he says.

The government has got six weeks to get this right. More of the same will not do.

Keir Starmer
Keir Starmer Photograph: Parliament TV

Raab claims leaving EU with no deal would have some benefits

Raab is still speaking. He says the government has also been making contingency plans for the possibility of a no deal Brexit.

He says, although a no deal Brexit is not what the UK wants, it would bring some benefits. He says the UK would be able to lower tariffs and strike trade deals immediately and that it would be able to introduce its own immigration rules immediately.

  • Raab claims leaving EU with no deal would have some benefits.

Dominic Raab's Commons Brexit statement

Dominic Raab, the Brexit secretary, is giving his statement to MPs about Brexit now.

He says he met Michel Barnier, the EU’s chief Brexit negotiator, in Brussels last week. he said they are putting “additional pace and intensity” into the talks.

He says the “vast majority” of the withdrawal agreement has been agreed.

But he says the UK cannot accept the EU plans for the Northern Ireland backstop, because the UK is opposed to putting a border down the Irish Sea.

He says he and other ministers have been meeting their EU counterparts to discuss Brexit. Since the white paper was published, more than 60 ministerial engagements have taken place, he says.

He says the UK put forward its proposals “in a spirit of compromise”. But they were challenging for some in the EU to accept, he says.

He says he is approaching the talks “with ambition, pragmatism and energy”, and if the EU reciprocates, there will be a deal, he says.

Speaking in the Commons earlier during an urgent question on Windrush, Diane Abbott, the shadow home secretary, said the Windrush scandal “lives even while some of its victims have died.” She told MPs:

This summer I was in the Caribbean and I would say to this House that ministers should not underestimate the concern the Windrush issue has caused throughout the Commonwealth.

We’re preparing to leave the EU but at a time we should be strengthening our trading links with Commonwealth partners in Africa, the Caribbean and south Asia, are ministers aware of how much damage the Windrush scandal has caused?

In response Caroline Nokes, the immigration minister, said that the government was taking a “proactive” approach to the problem and that Labour policies were partly to blame. She said:

Right to work checks commenced in 1997, controls on benefits in 1999, social care in 2002, civil penalties for employers of illegal workers in 2008. It is notable ... people from the Windrush generation who have had wrong done to them, for which we have apologised and will continue to apologise, have been affected over decades and of the 164 individuals identified so far by this review, [Abbott] might like to reflect that in the region of half of them were impacted prior to 2010.

Steven Woolfe, the former Ukip MEP who at one stage was a favourite to become party leader and who left the party in October 2016, has announced that he has applied to join the Conservatives. “All Brexit supporters should join the Conservative party to exert pressure both locally and nationally on Tory MPs,” he said in a statement. “This government was elected on a Brexit manifesto at the last election, we need to ensure the Brexit that the 17.4m voted for is honoured.”

Here are more snippets about what may, or may not, be happening at today’s NEC meeting.

From the New Statesman’s Stephen Bush

From the Sun’s Steve Hawkes

From the BBC’s Iain Watson

From HuffPost’s Paul Waugh

Here is the full text of the Scottish government’s 122-page programme for government for 2018-19 (pdf).

Here is the Scottish government’s news released summarising the proposals.

And here is the full text of the speech from Nicola Sturgeon, Scotland’s first minister, announcing the plans.

Nicola Sturgeon (left), Scotland’s first minister, announcing her programme for government in the Scottish parliament.
Nicola Sturgeon (left), Scotland’s first minister, announcing her programme for government in the Scottish parliament. Photograph: Andrew Milligan/PA

Where other parties stand on the IHRA antisemitism definition and examples

Various readers have asked, given the controversy about Labour and whether or not it has implemented the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of antisemitism with all its examples, if all other parties have also adopted the IHRA document in full.

The answer is, no. Earlier this summer Channel 4 News’s FactCheck blog looked at Theresa May’s claim that the Conservatives have adopted it. Its conclusion was harsh. It said:

The Conservative party code of conduct does not expressly mention antisemitism once – let alone define it.

The party maintains that they have adopted the International Holocaust Remembrance Association definition of antisemitism, unlike Labour. The Conservative party code of conduct does include a provision for harassment on the basis of religion and belief, which would presumably be invoked to deal with antisemitic behaviour in the party.

Nevertheless, it’s important to remember that the scandal surrounding Labour is about whether and how it defines antisemitism in its party rules. It is difficult for Theresa May to criticise the Labour on this front – as she did on Wednesday in parliament – when her own party has not specifically mentioned antisemitism in any of its official documents or rulebook.

According to Jewish News, the Lib Dems are planning to formally adopt the IHRA definition and examples tonight, although the party claims that in practice it has been using it already.

I’ve got a call out to the SNP, and will post what they tell me as an update later.

This does not mean that the Labour row is entirely spurious. The IHRA only became an issue in Labour circles because of claims that the party was not serious about tackling antisemitism, allegations that culminated in the Board of Deputies of British Jews and the Jewish Leadership Council organising a protest in Parliament Square on the issue. For Jeremy Corbyn’s critics, full adoption of IHRA and its examples at that point became a litmus test for anti-racism.

If an organisation does not have a problem with antisemitism, then you could argue that it does not need to adopt the IHRA wording wholesale, particularly if other codes of conduct address the same topic. The Tories would say this is not such a pressing problem for them (their leader has not been personally criticised by the Board of Deputies), although they do seem to have a far worse record on Islamophobia than any of the other main parties.

My colleague Dan Sabbagh has posted this on the NEC meeting.

Sturgeon announces SNP's programme for government

In Edinburgh Nicola Sturgeon, the Scottish first minister, has been announcing her government programme for the next year. I have not seen a text yet, but here are some highlights from Twitter.

The SNP has tweeted some hightlights on a thread starting here.

And here are some tweets from journalists.

I’ve corrected an earlier post because it said the Community union is not affiliated to Labour. (See 2.20pm.) It is.

GMB's backing for public vote on final Brexit deal - Analysis

The GMB’s decision to back calls for the public to have a vote on the final Brexit deal will not affect government thinking on the issue in the slightest. At the weekend Theresa May reaffirmed her opposition to the idea in the strongest terms.

But it is conceivable that the Labour party could be persuaded to back the idea and, in Labour circles, the GMB statement could turn out to be significant. Jeremy Corbyn is not keen on having another Brexit referendum, but he has not explicitly ruled it out and at the party conference he will come under strong pressure from activists (who are strongly anti-Brexit, and many of whom do back another referendum) to embrace the idea more enthusiastically.

The GMB is one of three big unions (along with Unite and Unison) that provide significant funding to the party and have a decisive say over votes at Labour conference. Unite has agreed a statement saying it is “open to the possibility of a popular vote being held on any deal, depending on political circumstances”. (This was seen as a compromise between those in the union in favour of the idea, and those keen to minimise embarrassment to Corbyn.) Today’s GMB statement is much more explicit than this. (See 1.53pm.) Unison has not taken a position yet.

At least six other unions have also backed giving the public a vote on the final Brexit deal - Prospect, TSSA, Community, the Royal College of Nursing, the Royal College of Midwives and the British Medical Association - but of those only TSSA and Community are affiliated to Labour.

The GMB statement does not refer to a second referendum as such. (See 1.53pm.) But it implies a preference for a second referendum, not a general election, as a means of giving the public a vote, and the union may have good reasons for not using the word. As the psephologist John Curtice explains in this blog about public views on a second referendum, “polls that ask people whether the ‘public’ should have a vote usually record a higher level of support than those that just ask whether there should be another referendum.”

UPDATE: I’ve corrected the penultimate paragraph because TSSA is not the only union on that list affiliated to Labour. Community is too.

Updated

What the GMB is saying about giving public vote on final Brexit deal

Here are the key quotes from the statement from Tim Roache, the GMB general secretary, about giving the public a vote on the final Brexit deal. (See 1.23pm.)

GMB respects the result of the referendum, but how we leave the EU is as important as the decision to leave in the first place. That’s why today, GMB is calling for a public vote on the final deal.

As trade unionists, when we negotiate a pay deal with an employer, we go back to our members and ask them if they’re happy with it. Whether they want to accept or reject it. That’s what people deserve now, because the promises that were made during the referendum campaign are simply not the reality we are facing ...

People voted for change - they voted to take back control. They did not vote for economic chaos or to put jobs and hard won rights on the line.

A Tory hard Brexit would be a disaster for GMB members. The government need to know they have to come back and face the music - they can’t sell working people down the river. That’s why GMB supports your right to decide what sort of Brexit is the right Brexit. That’s why we support a public vote on the final deal.

Roache did not say he was calling for a “referendum” on the final Brexit deal. The Labour party has backed the idea of the public having a say, but the strong preference of Jeremy Corbyn and his allies is for people to be consulted via a general election, not via a second Brexit referendum. Officially Labour is not calling for a second referendum, although the party has not explicitly ruled out the idea.

According to a GMB source, when Roache talks about wanting the public to have a vote, he is referring to the option of either a general election or a second referendum.

But Roache’s wording (particularly the pay offer analogy) suggests he sees a referendum as the more preferable option. A general election would involve a choice about Brexit, but it would also voters having to weigh up many other issues at the same time as well.

Tim Roache
Tim Roache Photograph: Matt Cardy/Getty Images

GMB union calls for public to get vote on final Brexit deal

The GMB union has come out in favour of giving the public a vote on the final Brexit deal. It has just put this video message on Twitter from its general secretary, Tim Roache.

Roache talks about giving the public a “vote”. He does not use the word “referendum”, but from the context it is clear that that is what he means.

I will post the quotes in a moment.

The GMB is one of the three big unions that exercise considerable influence over Labour (along with Unite and Unison) and it is the first to call for a referendum this explicitly.

This is from HuffPost’s Paul Waugh.

And this is from Politico Europe’s Tom McTague just a few minutes ago.

Perhaps that has something to do with the information that prompted this tweet earlier, from PoliticsHome’s Kevin Schofield.

UDPATE: Skwawkbox, the pro-Corbyn website said to have close links to Jeremy Corbyn’s office, says claims that Peter Willsman is facing criticism at the meeting are untrue.

Updated

Labour’s stance on the definition and the ongoing antisemitism row has been closely watched in Israel and led to fractures within parliament.

Israel’s minister of education, Naftali Bennett, has called Arab parliamentarians “supporters of antisemitism and terror” for a letter they penned in the Guardian on Sunday expressing their support for Jeremy Corbyn. In a statement he said:

They have shown their true colours by going out of their way to voice unanimous support for a man who has been labelled an existential threat to the British Jewish community. They have chosen to stand up for a man who honoured the planners of the Munich massacre. So let’s be clear, today the Joint Arab List Members of Knesset have made clear they are supporters of antisemitism and terrorism.

(Corbyn does not accept that his presence at a wreath-laying event in Tunisia in 2014 meant he was intending to honour those who planned the Munich massacre.)

Bennett also called for the speaker in Israel’s parliament, the Knesset, to censure the members behind the pro-Corbyn letter.

The political alliance of four Arab-dominated parties said in the letter that the British political class had ignored the Palestinian plight and that Corbyn was a “principled leftist leader who aspires for peace and justice and is opposed to all forms of racism, whether directed at Jews, Palestinians, or any other group”.

On the definition of antisemitism, they said:

As long as efforts to curb anti-Jewish sentiment in the UK are focused on combating the disparagement of Jews merely for their membership in a minority group, they have our full support. But when some try to force the Labour party into using as its litmus test a definition of antisemitism that goes far beyond anti-Jewish animus to include anti-Zionism, we must raise our voices and decry these efforts.

Naftali Bennett
Naftali Bennett Photograph: AFP/Getty Images

Charles Grant, director of the Centre for European Reform, is always worth reading on Brexit. This morning he tweeted this.

There are two urgent questions in the Commons today.

That means the Dominic Raab Brexit statement won’t start until around 5pm.

Ken Livingstone, the former mayor of London who resigned from Labour earlier this year while still suspended from the party earlier this year, told Sky News a few minutes ago that, if the party did adopt all the IHRA examples of racism, then there had to be qualifications. He said even the person who drafted the definition agreed. He told the programme:

The man who drafted this statement that defines antisemitism, the American lawyer who is Jewish himself, Kenneth Stern, says he now regrets that the wording of some of the examples he’s included has restricted freedom of speech when you are discussing the state of Israel. So, if they do include all of those poorly-worded examples, we have got to make absolutely sure that people aren’t then disciplined for simply stating historical facts, or having an honest and open debate.

Jewish Voice for Labour, a pro-Corbyn group, has more on Stern here. And here is Stern’s evidence on this topic to the US congress last year (pdf). Stern drafted a definition of antisemitism for EUMC (the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia), which was the basis of the one adopted by the IHRA.

As has become traditional for a Ken Livingstone TV interview, he also got in a mention of Hitler.

Ken Livingstone
Ken Livingstone Photograph: Sky News

Here are more pictures of the demonstrations outside the NEC meeting.

Here are some of the anti-Corbyn protesters.

(I’m using pro and anti-Corbyn as shorthand. The two protests are not so much about Corbyn per se, as about Labour’s stance on anti-semitism and the IHRA definition and accompanying examples. And, of course, as with any protest, different people will have different motives for turning up. But “pro and anti-Corbyn” does work as very broad guide as to where they are coming from, and there has been Corbyn-relating chanting from both sides. See 11.40am.)

Anti-Corbyn protesters
Protesters outside the NEC Photograph: Henry Nicholls/Reuters

And here are some on the pro-Corbyn side.

Pro-Corbyn protesters
Protesters outside the NEC Photograph: Henry Nicholls/Reuters
Protesters outside the NEC
Protesters outside the NEC Photograph: Henry Nicholls/Reuters
Protesters outside the NEC
Protesters outside the NEC Photograph: Henry Nicholls/Reuters

The Corbyn-supporting Labour MP Chris Williamson has addressed the protesters outside the NEC meeting. He said it was “absolutely vitally important that we retain the freedom of speech, the ability to criticise Netanyahu’s apartheid regime”. And he said he was not the only person with reservations about the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s examples of antisemitism. Many prominent Jewish academics, like Brian Klug, thought the same, he said.

Klug set out his views in a Guardian article in July. Here it is.

Williamson was standing in front of a banner that said IHRA No, BDS Yes. BDS refers to the boycott, divestment and sanctions movement.

Updated

Peter Willsman, who was re-elected to Labour’s national executive committee on the pro-Corbyn slate despite the controversy about his claims that allegations about antisemitism in the Labour party have been exaggerated or made up, has arrived for today’s meeting. He was cheered by Momentum activists. This is from Mail Online’s Kate Ferguson.

given a warm welcome by

Pro and anti-Corbyn campaigners protest as Labour's NEC meets to discuss antisemitism

Turning back to Labour and antisemitism, today’s national executive committee has attracted not just one protest, but two. There are some Jeremy Corbyn critics in favour of the party adopting the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition and examples in full. From them there have been chants of “Jeremy Corbyn out”.

But there is a larger group of pro-Corbyn campaigners who have been drowning out their opponents with the “oh Jeremy Corbyn” refrain. They are sceptical about the IHRA wording. According to the Press Association, they included people from Jewish Voice for Labour and Momentum and they had placards highlighting the plight of the Palestinians, and warning against curbing freedom to condemn Israel. One said “past abuse of Jews is no excuse for present abuse of Palestinians” while another read “criticism of Israel is not anti-Semitism”.

A small group of police officers kept a watchful eye on the protests, keeping the rival groups apart, the Press Association reports.

These are from the Press Association’s David Wilcock.

And this is from 5 News’ Andy Bell.

Andrea Jenkyns, a Tory Brexiter, asks if Rycroft is aware of any discussions within government about extending the transition period.

Rycroft says that is not government policy.

Rycroft says he was in Leeds last week talking to Asda. He wanted to find out about their Brexit concerns. He says they explained their supply chain issues to him.

He says the government has also made an effort to understand the concerns of SMEs (small and medium-sized enterprises.)

Labour’s Pat McFadden is asking the questions now.

Q: Did the government do an economic impact assessment of the Chequers plan?

Rycroft says, when a proposal is put to parliament, there will be an economic analysis published alongside it.

He says he lost “a couple of weeks” of his life when BuzzFeed published the leak of the government’s Brexit impact assessment. He says he hopes the final one gets released in the proper way.

Hilary Benn tries again.

Q: Did officials in government done any work looking at the economic impact of the Chequers proposals?

Yes, says Rycroft. He says the work is ongoing.

Richard Graham, a Conservative, goes next.

Q: What technical notices are you preparing on Northern Ireland?

Rycroft says all the technical notices for no deal planning apply to Northern Ireland. And there will be some specific ones for Northern Ireland too, he says.

Q: So there is no intention to do a special document for Northern Ireland?

Rycroft says that is a decision for ministers.

Labour’s Stephen Kinnock goes next.

Q: To what extent do you expect Brexit to be on the discussion at the Salzburg EU summit?

Rycroft says that is really a question for Dominic Raab, the Brexit secretary. Planning for that summit is a matter for the prime minister, he says.

Q: Do you have a range of options for what might happen after the “meaningful vote” in the Commons on Brexit?

Rycroft says this is an issue for government as a whole, not just his department.

The vote will be on the deal on the table, he says. He says it is not for him to speculate on what might happen beyond that point.

Stephen Crabb, the Conservative former cabinet minister, goes next.

Q: If there is going to be no deal, will the UK make arrangements with the EU to minimise disruption?

Rycroft says that would be the case. But he says he cannot say how that might happen.

Q: Are you assuming that the EU would cooperate?

Rycroft says that is the government’s assumption. But it is not relying on that, he says.

He says EU traders have a big interest in ensuring continuity of trade.

Q: When will businesses have to implement their plans?

Rycroft says it will come somewhere between October and March.

We know that, Bone says.

Rycroft says the government is working with business to understand their concerns, and their timetables.

Q: Do you accept that, at some point, the government will have to decide that there won’t be a deal?

That is self-evident, says Rycroft.

Q: And it will be earlier than March?

Rycroft agrees.

Bone says that means at least they have established February as a deadline.

UPDATE: This is from the Sun’s Harry Cole.

Updated

Peter Bone, a Tory Brexiter, goes next.

Q: I was involved in the travel industry. If there is no deal by October, won’t the government have to tell the travel industry by then to make alternative plan?

Rycroft says alerting businesses to what might have to be done is part of what it is doing with its technical notices.

John Whittingdale, the Conservative former culture secretary, is asking the questions now. He asks about the Downing Street announcement earlier in the summer saying DExEU was no longer in the lead in the Brexit talks.

Rycroft says he thinks the significance of this has been exaggerated.

He says just 18 staff were switched to the Cabinet Office. Another 16 staff from his department have been loaned to the Cabinet Office, he says.

Here is a link to the Mail on Sunday story saying the government has a plan to line the M20 with extra portable lavatories in the event of a no deal Brexit - a report that Philip Rycroft did not deny. (See 10.25am.)

Brexit department permanent secretary questioned by MPs

Philip Rycroft, the permanent secretary at the Brexit department (or DExEU, the Department for exiting the EU, to give it its formal title), is giving evidence to the Commons Brexit committee now.

Hilary Benn, the chair, asks Rycroft if he can confirm a report saying the government has plans to hire portable toilets for lorries that may have to be parked on a motorway after a no deal Brexit in the event of delays at Dover.

Rycroft says departments have their own plans. There are 300 plans, he says.

He says the committee would not expect him to answer detailed questions about all those plans.

But he can assure them plans are in place.

The FT’s Jim Pickard tweeted the article last month.

  • Brexit department chief refuses to deny reports saying government has plans to hire portable toilets for lorries parked on a motorway in the event of a no deal Brexit.

Benn says that sounds like a report saying the news was correct. He asks if it is correct to say that suppliers have been asked to sign non-disclosure agreements.

Rycroft says that is true in some cases.

  • Rycroft confirms some suppliers who might provide services in the event of a no deal Brexit have been asked to sign non-disclosure agreements.

Labour, antisemitism and the IHRA definition - A reading list

The row about Labour and its approach to antisemitism has been running in the media and in the party all summer but it has been tainted by hyperbole and assumptions of bad faith on both sides and all this heat has not necessarily shed much more light on the issues involved.

In the interests of trying to clarify and explain what’s at stake, here is a reading list of articles and documents that are worth reading. It is not comprehensive, and do feel free to suggest additions in the comments below. But I hope it will help.

  • Here are the four examples of antisemitism in the IHRA definition which are not included verbatim as bullet points in the Labour code.

Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations.

Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.

Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.

Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.

IHRA example - one half of one example wording not explicitly referenced. IHRA text says (sub clause of example in italics not replicated in Code of Conduct): “Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.” This is 0.5 of the 11 IHRA examples.

However, this point is covered by the part of Labour’s code which says Israel’s conduct should be assessed “against the requirements of international law or the standard of behaviour expected of democratic states” and that double standards should not be applied.

And Labour’s code states: “the party is clear that the Jewish people have the same right to self-determination as any other people. To deny that right is to treat the Jewish people unequally and is therefore a form of antisemitism.”

Why is “racist endeavour” not explicitly included? The IHRA text says: “criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic.” But the sub-example creates an ambiguity that, without contextualisation, could curb legitimate criticism of the Israeli State, and could denyPalestinians the right to speak about the oppression and racism they feel they have suffered. That could expose the party to claims that it has breached the freedom of expression principle of article 10 ECHR. But the code expressly prohibits criticism of the Israeli state that holds it to a higher standard than that expected of other democratic states, or that which denies Jewish people the same right to self-determination as other peoples.

We broadly accept the IHRA definition, but propose two additional clarifications to ensure that freedom of speech is maintained in the context of discourse about Israel and Palestine, without allowing antisemitism to permeate any debate. The definition should include the following statements:

It is not antisemitic to criticise the government of Israel, without additional evidence to suggest antisemitic intent.

It is not antisemitic to hold the Israeli government to the same standards as other liberal democracies, or to take a particular interest in the Israeli government’s policies or actions, without additional evidence to suggest antisemitic intent.

It is too easy to forget the extent of the international unanimity around the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance which was first formed as a task force 20 years ago in 1998 out of Sweden.

What is now the internationally-agreed definition of antisemitism was negotiated at length and in detail –driven forward by input from many of the world’s foremost experts on antisemitism, a momentous exercise in international cooperation, approved in 2016 by governments including the UK and now signed by 31 countries within the alliance with many more now indicating support.

Endorsed in our own country and other countries by a multitude of local councils and cities, it is born out of a specific and important objective to which we can all subscribe – educating a new generation about the horrors of the Holocaust ...

And it states clearly in its opening statement so that there is no doubt, that ‘criticism of Israel similar to that levelled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic” ....

And to those who say we should amend the document, I ask you: should we not listen to those who have suffered oppression, and give some priority to their views, their conviction that we should adopt it in full – no ifs no buts, no caveats, no qualifications?

Can you imagine a document on sexism and sexual violence with men defining what is discrimination against women and detailing the remedies and not fully listening to the voice of women? ...

But we should not amend this declaration for another reason: We have 31 countries and fortunately one agreed definition.

There is not a Jewish definition and then a competing non-Jewish definition .

There is not a western definition and a competing eastern definition.

There is not a left definition and a competing right definition: there is one unified definition that gains its strength from us all coming round behind it.

I say that the document’s unanimity is its greatest strength and if we amend it and then others amend it and add new qualifications, with new ifs and new buts, and new caveats, we will end up with a world where we are seen to be divided; where no common action against antisemitism is possible and where the antisemitic camp simply divides and rules.

Gordon Brown speaking at Jewish Labour Movement conference on Sunday.
Gordon Brown speaking at Jewish Labour Movement conference on Sunday.
 Photograph: Dan Kitwood/Getty Images

Barnier told MPs Chequers plan not acceptable to EU, Whittingdale says

John Whittingdale, the Conservative Brexiter and former culture secretary, was also on the Today programme this morning. He was speaking in his capacity as vice chair of the Commons Brexit committee and he told the programme that, when the committee met Michel Barnier, the EU’s chief Brexit negotiator, in Brussels yesterday, Barnier said the UK government’s Chequers plan was “not acceptable to the European Union”.

Jacob Rees-Mogg, another Tory Brexiter who sits on the committee, gave a similar account of Barnier’s views yesterday, only in more colourful language.

Whittingdale told the programme he had been “encouraged” by the meeting with Barnier. He went on:

I don’t think Chequers can possibly work.

I’m very unhappy with the proposal because it seems to me that it leaves us still under the control of the European Union but without any influence at all.

But even if I supported Chequers it became very clear from Mr Barnier that the European commission just cannot accept it. They see it as going against the fundamental principles of the single market and customs union.

Stephen Kinnock was on the Today programme alongside the journalist and Corbyn supporter Michael Segalov. Segalov said that “clarifications” to the IHRA definition of antisemitism were needed, and that the Commons home affairs committee said so itself. He told the programme:

While the definition itself should not be under question ... some of these examples (of antisemitism) do have the potential ... to veer off into restricting the rights of Palestinians to describe their own experiences and oppression.

We spent the whole summer quite rightly talking about how Jewish people and Jewish voice should be heard when it comes to anti-Semitism. The same thing has to be true for Palestinians and other minority groups.

He also said it was absurd to claim that Jeremy Corbyn was personally responsible for antisemitism in the party. He said:

To make out in this narrative that it is Jeremy Corbyn’s fault there is a small number of anti-Semites in Labour Party ranks when anti-Semitism sadly has been a stain on our country, and beyond across Europe, for generations and caused untold horrors, is an absurdity.

Corbyn should use conference speech to express 'remorse' over antisemitism, says Stephen Kinnock

We’ve got a heavy Brexit day coming up, with the permanent secretary at the Brexit department, Sir Philip Rycroft, giving evidence to MPs this morning and Dominic Raab, the Brexit secretary, making a statement to MPs this afternoon. Raab will be telling them about his talks with Michel Barnier, the EU’s chief Brexit negotiator, over the summer, and he will have to explain why the government still thinks the Chequers Brexit plan is viable even though it has been rubbished by MPs from all sides and Barnier himself has described parts of it as “insane”.

But we’ve also got a meeting of Labour’s national executive committee where the party’s ruling body is expected to adopt in full the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition in full, with all its accompanying examples. Earlier this summer the party adopted a code of conduct on antisemitism that adopted the IHRA definition, but did not incorporate some of the examples verbatim, leading to complaints that it was trying to water it down. Labour responded by arguing that in some respects its code was tougher and that it was rephrasing some of the examples to protect legitimate criticism of Israel.

As Dan Sabbagh and Rajeev Syal report in our overnight story, today the NEC is expected to adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s definition of antisemitism in full and issue a clarification emphasising the right to non-racist free speech when discussing Israeli politics.

But on the Today programme this morning Stephen Kinnock, one of the many Labour MPs who has expressed doubts about Jeremy Corbyn in the past, said the party should adopt the IHRA definition and its examples without any qualifications. And he urged Corbyn to use his party conference speech in Liverpool later this month to express “remorse” for the party’s handling of this issue. Kinnock said:

The NEC should simply adopt the full IHRA definition and all of its examples. I don’t personally think that now is the time to be putting in additions and qualifications. It’s like pouring more fuel on the fire, and that’s the last thing that we should be doing right now ...

I think the fire is is clearly still burning. There’s a huge amount that needs to be done to show that, not just with words, but also with actions, that the leadership and listened and understood the concerns of the Jewish community ...

I think we should have had an emergency meeting of the shadow cabinet over the summer. We should be committing now to a massive programme of training for our membership. I think we need to see Jeremy coming forward, in his conference speech particularly, which will be a real opportunity to show remorse for what has happened, to show understanding of the pain and the hurt which has been suffered both by my colleagues, particularly Jewish colleagues in the parliamentary Labour party, and to demonstrate that we can’t make these policies in an ivory tower.

As Gordon Brown said so rightly over the weekend, we would never put forward policies on issuing relating to the black and ethnic minority community without consulting stakeholders properly from within that community ... So we need to show that we are listening, understanding and engaging, and I think that the first step should be full adopting of the IHRA [definition] and all examples, and that’s it from the NEC today.

Here is the agenda for the day.

9.30am: Theresa May chairs cabinet.

10.15am: Philip Rycroft, permanent secretary at the Brexit department, gives evidence to the Commons Brexit committee.

Around lunchtime: Labour’s national executive committee meets.

1.15pm: Mark Carney, governor of the Bank of England, gives evidence to the Commons Treasury committee. My colleague Graeme Wearden will be covering the hearing on his business live blog.

1.30pm: The Green party announces the results of its leadership election. The favourites are Jonathan Bartley, the current co-leader, and Siân Berry, who are running on a joint ticket job share.

2.30pm: Jeremy Hunt, the foreign secretary, takes questions in the Commons.

Around 2.30pm: Nicola Sturgeon, Scotland’s first minister, announces her programme for government for the next year.

After 3.30pm: Dominic Raab, the Brexit secretary, will make a statement to MPs about latest developments in the Brexit negotiations.

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. I plan to publish a summary at lunchtime and another when I wrap up, which will be at the end of the Raab statement. (Given that there are likely to be urgent questions, I would expect Raab to finish around 6ish.) Comments will probably close soon after that.

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

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

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

I try to monitor the comments BTL but 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.

Stephen Kinnock
Stephen Kinnock Photograph: Andy Hall for the Observer

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
Tequila, whiskey, wine: How thinking about your favourite drinks shapes your mindset
A new study finds that thinking about different types of alcohol can influence mood and mindset, even without drinking.
Euronews
Euronews
Love is Blind’s toxic men show how bad things have got for single women
COMMENT: The latest series of the reality show has seen innocent women suckered in by red pill men who happily compare themselves to Andrew Tate on screen. It shows just how common these toxic attitudes have become, writes Helen Coffey
The Independent UK
The Independent UK
Katy Perry Responds to Fan Selling Concert Ticket Due to Money Struggles: 'But I'm Looking Forward to Seeing You!'
Katy Perry's response to a fan's financial struggles has ignited a social media debate, highlighting the challenges of celebrity engagement.
International Business Times UK
International Business Times UK
A Big Change At Disneyland Has Some Theme Park Fans Talking About Ride Queue Etiquette, And I Think There's A Clear Answer
If you're going to Disneyland, you need to know how to queue.
Cinemablend
Cinemablend
Nicole Kidman, Keith Urban Divorce: Babygirl Star Breaks Silence On Split, Vows To Keep Family Together
Nicole Kidman has addressed her divorce from Keith Urban for the first time, using a new Variety interview to stress privacy, family and forward motion. Her comments arrive months after reports of the September 2025 split and January settlement details that set out how the former couple would parent their…
International Business Times UK
International Business Times UK
People Have Been Following Around Tom Holland Hoping To See If He's Wearing A Wedding Band Like Zendaya
Did Zendaya put a ring on it, too?
Cinemablend
Cinemablend
Fourteen days free
Download the app
One app. One membership.
100+ trusted global sources.
Download on the AppStore Get it on Google Play