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

Donald Tusk: EU deal is 'legally binding and irreversible' - as it happened

Cameron’s ‘motherly advice’ for Corbyn

Afternoon summary

  • Corbyn has accused Cameron of using “misleading” figures about the number of excess deaths there are in hospitals at weekends. Speaking at PMQS, he said:

This dispute with the junior doctors has been on the basis of misrepresented research about weekend mortality. I’ll read the prime minster what the researchers themselves say - ‘it is not possible to ascertain the extent to which these excess deaths may be preventable, to assume that they are avoidable would be rash and misleading’. So are you and your health secretary being rash and misleading with these figures?

In his reply, Cameron said it was the BMA that had been misleading, because it had publishing inaccurate information about the pay deal for junior doctors. And he defended Hunt, saying:

Now let me answer, very directly, the question about excess deaths. The 6,000 figure for excess deaths was based on a question asked by the health secretary to Sir Bruce Keogh, the medical director of the NHS. Now we have had time to go into these figures in more detail, I can tell you this - that the health secretary was indeed guilty. He was guilty of an understatement. The true figures for excess deaths at the weekend are 11,000, not 6,000, so perhaps you will now withdraw your totally unjustified attack on the health secretary?

Cameron ignored the point Corbyn was making, which is that the researchers who produced the 11,000 figure said it would be misleading to suggest those deaths were caused by low staffing levels at weekends.

  • Nigel Farage, the Ukip leader, has sacked Suzanne Evans as a party deputy chair. He said he was moving Evans and Neil Hamilton, another deputy chair, because they were both candidates in the May elections. They are being replaced by Diane James and William Dartmouth. Evans said she was “disappointed” to lose her post.

That’s all from me for today.

Thanks for the comments (or at least for the polite ones!)

Updated

Cameron’s EU deal contains “legal uncertainties”, European scrutiny committee’s legal adviser says

The Commons European scrutiny committee, chaired by the arch-Eurosceptic Sir Bill Cash, has this afternoon published a briefing from its own legal adviser, Arnold Ridout, on the legality of the EU deal (pdf).

  • David Cameron’s EU deal contains “legal uncertainties”, European scrutiny committee’s legal adviser says.

Here is a summary of his analysis. (My bold text.)

  • The renegotiation package is based on an international agreement which is binding in international law (which means it lacks the enforcement mechanisms of EU or domestic law). Any such agreement must conform to EU law. To the extent it does not EU law prevails.
  • The international agreement is “irreversible” in the sense that it can only be repealed or amended by common accord of the parties, but that does not have the effect of removing the legal uncertainties highlighted by this note i.e. there is no legal guarantee that the Decision will produce all the results envisaged.
  • This international law agreement does not purport to change the Treaties, only clarify or supplement them. Any such clarifications of the Treaties, and the consistency with the Treaties of supplemental agreements, are subject to the view of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) because it is the ultimate interpreter of the Treaties.
  • There are two areas where Treaty change is envisaged, in each case to “upgrade” clarifications to Treaty level. Any such upgrade limits the scope for the Court of Justice to give an adverse judgment.
  • Both areas of future Treaty change lack detail and urgency; and are in any event conditional, as they must be, on the approval/ratification of the Member States. This makes any future Treaty change vulnerable to a change in government or an adverse referendum result in another Member State.
  • Critical EU secondary legislation envisaged by the package is subject to agreement by the European Parliament which is not bound by the international law agreement and has made no declaration of its intentions (although it has been involved in the negotiations and European Parliament Groups have made positive statements).
  • It is questionable how much effect the red card will make in practice.
  • The emergency brake in respect of the Eurozone is not a veto.
  • The emergency brake in respect of free movement applies only to in work benefits and relies on agreement by the Commission (effectively given for this first time by a Declaration) and the Council (which is also likely on this first occasion).

The committee has also published other legal advice it has received on this issue.

Updated

Michael Gove's BBC interview - Summary

The BBC’s Laura Kuenssberg conducted the first TV interview with Michael Gove since he announced he was campaigning for Brexit. The BBC released an excerpt this morning, and I summarised those points at 9.39am. The full interview is now available here. Here are the best new lines.

  • Gove suggested that Britain could not be a proper democracy if it remained in the EU. Asked if he was saying Britain was not a democracy, he replied:

I don’t think that we are properly self governing, because I don’t believe that a country that has decisions taken by politicians that we can’t remove, by judges who we can’t appeal their decisions - that doesn’t mean that we are properly self-governing. People want to take back control.

The money that we spend in this country, the laws that we make, the taxes that we set, they should be decided on by people you can throw out. The most powerful symbol in our democracy is the removal van that turns up outside 10 Downing Street after an election when someone has been thrown out because they’ve done a bad job. One of the problems with the European Union is that you can throw out the government but some of the rules remain the same no matter how you vote and that impairs our democracy and its ability to function.

  • He said he and Boris Johnson did not encourage each other to back Brexit.
  • He said he expected the Conservative party to survive the EU split because MPs were strongly committed to keeping the debate “civilised, in the national interest”.
  • He said Britain would be able to negotiate trade deals more quickly with other countries if it were outside the EU.

Because the EU has to negotiate on behalf of 28 countries trade agreements between the EU and outside nations take forever to negotiate. Little Switzerland has been able to negotiate more lucrative trade deals at a faster rate than the EU. If little Switzerland can do it, then Britain as a member of the G8, the fifth biggest economy in the world, would be in pole position. And it wouldn’t just be good for us. It would also be good for the developing world, good for in essence making the world a fairer as well as a wealthier place.

  • He dismissed the FTSE 100 bosses backing Britain remaining in the EU, saying business people were wrong about the exchange rate mechanism.
  • He said EU migration policy was “creating misery”.

One of the problems with the European Union migration policy at the moment is that it’s creating misery on our borders, it’s creating a terrible situation which means that we are not in a position to be both humane and also wise with respect to our economic future. And that’s why I think we need to leave, take back control and decide who we want in this country and at what rate.

Michael Gove
Michael Gove Photograph: Carl Court/Getty Images

In the European parliament Jean-Claude Juncker, president of the European commission, said that the deal David Cameron secured in Brussels was the best available. He predicted that Britain would vote to remain in the EU. He told MEPs:

The UK prime minister got the most he could obtain and the other member states offered him as much as they could offer.”

The deal with the UK is fair, balanced and complies with the great principles of the European Union, and takes into account the concerns, desiderata and suggestions of the UK.

I therefore think that the British people - which through the course of history have proved their wisdom and courage time and again - will say Yes to the arrangements which we have arrived at with the UK.

My take on PMQs has not gone down well with some readers, I see.

If you’re interested, I wrote a lengthy post a while ago - here, at 2.35pm - about how to decide who wins PMQs.

Tusk says EU agreement is 'legally binding and irreversible'

Donald Tusk, president of the European council, has been speaking in a debate in the European parliament. He said that the EU deal agree last week was “legally binding and irreversible” and that it “cannot be annulled by the European court of justice”.

Donald Tusk (left) and European commission president Jean-Claude Juncker at the start of a European parliament plenary session in Brussels
Donald Tusk (left) and European commission president Jean-Claude Juncker at the start of a European parliament plenary session in Brussels Photograph: Olivier Hoslet/EPA

Updated

My colleague Joshua Rozenberg has written an analysis of who’s right and who’s wrong in the argument about whether or not David Cameron’s EU deal is legally binding.

Here’s an extract.

Government sources have told me that [Michael] Gove was given official advice that the UK would not be able to take legal action against other EU states if they were to renege on the deal. The same sources said that the EU commission would be only “indirectly bound” by the agreement and that changes in the EU treaty would be needed for the decision to be directly binding on the commission.

Because the deal agreed in Brussels last week is so complicated, nobody can give a simple answer to the question of whether it is legally binding. Downing Street relies on a 17-page opinion by Prof Sir Alan Dashwood QC, a hugely experienced EU law practitioner. There is also a lengthy analysis by Prof Steve Peers, of the University of Essex, helpfully summarised by the fact-checking group Full Fact.

Dashwood begins by explaining that decisions of the EU heads of state or government – such as the one reached last week – constitute “binding international agreements in simplified form”. Such treaties have previously been registered with the UN secretariat under article 102 of the UN charter.

Peers makes the important point that the decision reached last week “is not EU law as such; it’s international law”. This view, which supports Gove’s reasoning, is confirmed by an opinion given this month by the European council’s legal counsel. By itself, then, the decision cannot change EU law. In the event of any conflict, EU law has primacy.

But Dashwood argues that because the decision “is a text concerning the interpretation and application of the EU treaties, any dispute between member states in relation to it would appear to fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the court of justice of the EU”. This is not spelled out in the decision, but Dashwood argues that it is implicit.

And here’s Joshua’s conclusion.

At one level, the protagonists are talking about different things: Gove is discussing EU law while Cameron is relying on international law. But, as is often the case with legal disputes, there are powerful arguments on both sides. We shall just have to wait and see what the European court decides – if it ever comes to that. Meanwhile, the political fight continues.

Here’s the full article.

Human rights minister Dominic Raab says Cameron's EU deal less binding than a dishwasher guarantee

Dominic Raab, the human rights minister, has intervened in the debate about whether or not David Cameron’s EU deal is legally binding. Raab, a former Foreign Office lawyer who is campaigning for Brexit, has agrees with his departmental boss, the justice secretary Michael Gove, and disagrees with Number 10 and Jeremy Wright, the attorney general. Raab said:

The EU’s own legal advice makes clear the UK deal is based on vague assurances. This is not the kind of legal guarantee you get when you buy a dishwasher, so you get your money back if it breaks down.

Ultimately, it is crystal clear the Luxembourg Court will have the last word as to what sticks, and it is free to not to enforce the British deal.

Dominic Raab
Dominic Raab Photograph: Paul Grover / Rex Features

Michael O’Leary, chief executive of Ryanair, has said the company would be campaigning for Britain to remain in the EU. This is what he told a press conference.

As the UK’s largest airline, Ryanair is absolutely clear that the UK economy and its future growth prospects are stronger as a member of the European Union than they are outside of the EU.

Leaving Europe won’t save the UK money or red tape because like Norway the UK will still have to contribute to Europe, and obey its rules if it wants to continue to trade freely with Europe, so it’s clear that UK voters should vote Yes to Europe and Yes to the reformed Europe, that David Cameron has delivered.

Ryanair, our people, and I hope the vast majority of our customers, will all work together over the coming months to help deliver a resounding Yes vote on June 23.

Michael O’Leary
Michael O’Leary Photograph: Niklas Halle'N/AFP/Getty Images

Dr Mark Porter, chair of the BMA council, has put out a statement backing Jeremy Corbyn’s claim at PMQs about the government using “misleading” figures about excess hospital deaths at weekends. Commenting on the latest FoI revelations that Corbyn raised, Porter said:

This yet again calls into question figures used by the health secretary in his bid to push through more seven-day services across the UK, without extra funding or staffing.

His misleading use of figures has scared patients and the public, and angered NHS staff by misrepresenting the care that’s already provided at weekends.

The fact is, doctor’s work around the clock, seven days a week and they do so under their existing contracts. If the government want more seven-day services then rather than using figures designed to worry patients they should be outlining where the extra doctors, nurses and diagnostic staff, and the extra investment needed to deliver them will come from.

Gove says Britain cannot be "properly self-governing" while it remains in the EU

The BBC has put the extended version of its Michael Gove interview here, on its website.

In it, he comes close to claiming that Britain cannot be a proper democracy within the EU.

I do not think we are properly self-governing.

He also says that he did not try to “push” Boris Johnson on what he should do over Brexit, and Johnson did not try to “push” him. When they met for dinner, at that point neither of them had definitely made up their mind, he says.

I will post more quotes from the interview later.

PMQs - Verdict from the Twitter commentariat

My colleague Jamie Grierson posted some Twitter comment on PMQs earlier.

Here are some more tweets from political journalists.

From the New Statesman’s George Eaton

From the Daily Mirror’s Jason Beattie

From the New Statesman’s Jason Cowley

From Channel 4 News’s Krishnan Guru-Murthy

From the Guardian’s Gaby Hinsliff

From ITV’s Robert Peston

Updated

No 10 apologises to general wrongly accused in list of military chiefs opposed to Brexit

Downing Street has been forced to issue a humiliating apology to General Sir Michael Rose, a former special forces chief, after wrongly including him in a list of former military chiefs who oppose the UK leaving the EU.

A No 10 spokesman said Rose’s name appeared on the list because of a “mistake” in the drafting of the letter, which was handed to the Telegraph for publication in Wednesday’s newspaper.

The letter was purportedly signed by 13 former military chiefs saying Europe faced a series of “grave security challenges” and the UK was in a “stronger” position to deal with them from inside the EU. Signatories included Field Marshal Lord Bramall, Field Marshal Lord Guthrie,Air Chief Marshal Lord Stirrup, Admiral of the Fleet Lord Boyce and General Sir Michael Rose.

But it is understood Downing Street was told by Rose on Wednesday morning that he had not signed the letter, even though he had seen a draft that was circulated to him. A spokesman would not elaborate on how the mistake came about.

General Sir Michael Rose
General Sir Michael Rose
 Photograph: Murdo Macleod for the Guardian

Updated

PMQs - Verdict

PMQs - Verdict: There was a time a few months ago when it looked as if Jeremy Corbyn was succeeding in turning PMQs into a more serious and reflective exchange. “It would never last”, many said, and they turned out to be right. Which is probably a shame ...

Not that David Cameron will mind. He had his best PMQs for weeks, primarily because he got his chance to vent another of his gripes about Jeremy Corbyn; not only does he believe that Corbyn is a “terrorist sympathiser”, as he said on the the eve of the Syria vote last year, he also thinks the chap’s a bit scruffy too. (Quite which characteristic Cameron objects to most is hard to tell.) Cameron delivered the jibe after a Labour MP asked what Cameron’s mother would have to say about the Oxfordshire cuts. Cameron responded with:

I think I know what my mother would say, I think she’d look across the Despatch Box say ‘put on a proper suit, do up your tie and sing the national anthem!

Presumably Cameron had prepared this in advance, on the basis that it was fairly easy to guess that someone would mention his mother signing an anti-cuts petition. If so, this was a good example of how the best “spontaneous” moments at PMQs are the product of careful preparation.

And Jeremy Corbyn’s preparation was rather poor. His first question included the claim that Jeremy Hunt had “vetoed” a deal with junior doctors. Cameron said in his reply that this was not the case, but Corbyn was unable to come back with information to challenge that. In his second question he asked about Sir Bruce Keogh, the NHS England’s medical director’s, claim that it was “rash and misleading” to suggest that excess weekend hospital deaths were preventable. But then Cameron appeared to confound him by saying that there were not 6,000 excess weekend deaths, but 11,000. Corbyn did not have a come back to this, and used his third question to ask about a relatively obscure story saying an email revealed under FoI shows the Department for Health chose to answer questions about where Hunt got the 6,000 figure with “the most bland statement possible”. Many MPs will have struggled to know what Corbyn was talking about, and Cameron responded with a broad point about the need for a seven-day NHS.

Jeremy Corbyn has tweeted a riposte to Cameron’s dig at his dress sense.

Owen Paterson, the Conservative former environment secretary, asks if Sir Jeremy Heywood’s letter yesterday about what civil servants can do in the EU referendum is compatible with rules about referendum neutrality.

Cameron says he was happy with that letter. He says the government is not neutral; it is backing Britain remaining in the EU. He says both sides in the campaign will be properly funded.

Nusrat Ghani, a Conservative, asks about domestic violence.

Cameron says we have got better at tacking domestic violence, but there is more to do. This is the kind of issue where police and crime commissioners can give a real lead.

Callum McCaig, an SNP MP, asks Cameron to cut taxes for the North Sea oil industry.

Cameron says this happened in the last budget. Since then oil and gas revenues have fallen 94%. If Scotland was independent, it would be facing a financial catastrophe.

Kelly Tolhurst, a Conservative, asks what the government will do to help families whose children are abducted and taken abroad. She mentions a constituency case.

Cameron says this is a decision for a Polish court. But the government will do all it can to help.

Cameron says he is a strong friend of Israel. But when he first saw how East Jerusalem was encircled he found it “genuinely shocking”.

Cameron taunts Labour over the decision by Emily Thornberry to hire Damian McBride, Gordon Brown’s former adviser, as a spin doctor. Corbyn promised a politics that was honest, kinder and more caring, he says. Six months later they have hired McBride. That says it all, he says.

Updated

Huw Merriman, a Conservative, asks Cameron to carry on championing children who need mental health treatment.

Cameron says all MPs would agree that this is an area where children have not received proper treatment over the years. There has been a big increase in talking therapies. But more needs to be done. The government is investing £1.4bn in this, he says.

Labour’s Tulip Siddiq says the government only believes in the devolution of blame for cuts.

Cameron says there is a long-standing system that allows planning decisions to be called in. But the new system of local plans has enhanced local power, he says.

The Twitter commentariat have reacted with incredulity to Cameron’s jibe about his mother’s views on Corbyn’s dress sense and alleged reluctance to sing the national anthem.

Here’s a flavour of how this low-blow was received:

Although this guy thought Cameron was on to something:

Updated

Snap PMQs verdict

Snap PMQs verdict: It should be worrying for a Labour leader if he can’t win, or at least hold his own, on the NHS. Cameron knocked Corbyn out of the ring with his glib “Do up your tie” jibe (some people admire Corbyn for his sartorial humility, but there are probably many more who think a would-be prime minister should turn up to work looking smart), and even though Corbyn came back with a spirited come-back, he could not repair the damage done. But, even without that put-down, Cameron had the upper hand because he successfully defused Corbyn’s question about “misleading” hospital weekend mortality figures with a new figure that left Corbyn (and all the rest of us - I didn’t know what he was talking about) stumped. Corbyn was not prepared with a response, and just moved on. His final question just amounted to a plea for higher NHS spending, but Cameron retaliated with a fair question highlighting Labour’s ambivalence about the entire seven-day NHS project.

Updated

Corbyn says his mother would have said, “Stand up for the NHS.” What is the government doing about NHS deficits?

Cameron says the government is backing the Simon Stevens plan for the NHS. Labour refuses to put the money in, he says. He says his mother is proud of the NHS. And if Nye Bevan was here today he would want a seven-day NHS.

Corbyn says Bevan would be turning in is grave if he were here. He wanted a health service for all. The NHS has brilliant staff. He quotes a question from Ashraf, a doctor, who says there is already a seven-day NHS. He says hospitals need more staff if they want a seven-day NHS. Will the government commit to paying for an NHS?

Cameron says it is not clear if Labour supports a seven-day NHS or not? The government does. That is why it is looking at new contracts. It is good for hospitals, staff and patients for hospitals to be carrying out operations on Sunday. He wants a world-class NHS, and will build one, he says.

Corbyn says there is no junior doctors’ dispute in Wales or Scotland. And the public support the junior doctors. An FoI request today by the BBC showed the Department for Health intentionally offered a bland statement.

Cameron says Corbyn wrote that question before he heard the answer. He says Corbyn has not withdrawn his charge against Hunt. In Scotland and Wales they are not introducing a seven-day NHS. If Corbyn reads the Labour report into why it lost the election, he will see the concept of a seven-day NHS was popular. There is a settlement of the junior doctors’ contract. The government is building a strong NHS.

Corybyn says you do not build a strong NHS by provoking industrial action, and failing to get a grip on the costs of agency staff. He quotes spending in Oxfordshire on agency staff. As chair of the Oxfordshire anti-austerity movement, will he write a letter to himself?

Cameron says he has met an NHS chief in Oxfordshire.

An MP shouts “Ask your mother”.

Cameron says he knows what his mother would have said to Corbyn: Smarten yourself up, do up your tie and sing the national anthem.

Updated

Jeremy Corbyn also praises tribute to the emergency services for their work at Didcot.

He says yesterday’s NHS staff survey showed nine out of 10 junior doctors already work extra hours. And morale is falling. Why did the health secretary veto a deal?

Cameron says Jeremy Hunt did not veto a deal. He says people work hard. But what matters is having a seven-day NHS. The new contract will not force people to work longer hours. There will be better safeguards. It is not about saving money. It is a good deal.

Corbyn says this dispute has been on the basis of misrepresented research. He quotes the researchers saying it would be “rash and misleading” to say increased death rates at weekends were due to staff shortages.

Cameron says it is the BMA that is responsible for misleading people. It published misleading information about pay. He says the health secretary was guilty - of an understatement. The true figures for excess deaths at weekends are 11,000, not 6,000. He urges Corbyn to withdraw his attack on Hunt.

Michelle Donelan, a Conservative, asks what more can be done to help find homes for Syrian refugees.

Cameron says Britain has done better than any other EU country in terms of resettlement. He says he will arrange a meeting with the Home Office for Donelan to discuss resettlement.

David Cameron starts by talking about the “dreadful” accident at Didcot power station. He praises the work of the emergency services. There will be a full HSE investigation, he says.

Cameron at PMQs

PMQs is about to start.

Earlier this month Pavlos Eleftheriadis, a barrister and Oxford academic, wrote a post for the UK Constitutional Law Association blog explaining the exact legal nature of the EU deal that David Cameron was being offered. The article was written before the final deal was agreed, but by then it was already clear what legal shape it would take. The analysis helps to shed light on the dispute between Michael Gove and Number 10.

(Put simply, Number 10 is entitled to say that the deal carries proper legal force, but Michael Gove is correct when he says that the European court of justice could still technically override them.)

Eleftheriadis says (my bold type):

The European Council will meet on 18 and 19 February, with the United Kingdom settlement on the agenda. It is expected that a final deal will be agreed there. I conclude that the only way in which the Draft Settlement can work in practice, is if it is not taken to be new treaty of EU or public international law. If it is such a treaty it will inevitably interfere with the constitutional architecture of the EU. It will create ambiguities that may end up in a constitutional crisis, especially since it opens the way for litigation concerning all types of banking regulation, which matters hugely for the United Kingdom.

In my view, the settlement will only work if it is considered by all parties to be legally binding only as an interpretive agreement under Article 31 of the Vienna Convention, and therefore does not even begin to challenge the treaty framework. This may be politically difficult for the Prime Minister, who has promised a legally binding agreement on the ground that it is a treaty. It is clear that “legally binding as a treaty” and “legally binding as an agreement relevant to interpretation” are not the same thing. But given the alternatives, this is the only reasonable way forward for the European Union. This also follows precedent, because it is the way in which European Court of Justice has spoken of a similar agreement in the past.

Public accounts committee says Google's £130m tax settlement 'seems disproportionately small'

The Commons public accounts committee has this morning published a report covering Google’s tax settlement with HM Revenue and Customs.

It says Google’s £130m tax settlement “seems disproportionately small when compared with the size of Google’s business in the UK, reinforcing our concerns that the rules governing where corporation tax is paid by multinational companies do not produce a fair outcome”.

And it urges the government to “lead the way in pressing for changes in international tax rules to prevent aggressive avoidance by multinational companies.”

Here’s my colleague Rajeev Syal’s story about this.

Updated

Michael Gove may have Number 10 and the attorney general disputing what he has said about the legal force of the EU agreement, but some commentators are taking his side.

This is from Joshua Rozenberg, the legal commentator, Guardian contributor and an honorary QC).

These are from David Allen Green, the legal blogger and legal commentator for the FT.

And this is from Lawyers for Britain, lawyers campaigning for Brexit.

This is not the first time Michael Gove’s grasp of EU matters has been challenged. Two days ago In Facts, a blog dedicated to making what it says is “a fact-based case for Britain to remain in the EU” published a blog contesting some of the claims Gove made in the statement he published explaining why he would be vote to leave the EU.

Steve Peers, a professor of EU law and human rights law at the University of Essex, has written a lengthy and authoritative assessment of whether the EU renegotiation here, at the EU Law Analysis blog.

To make life easy, here’s his one-paragraph summary.

It follows from the above that the renegotiation deal is binding – and anyone who says otherwise (without clarification) is just not telling the truth. But there are two significant caveats to that: (a) parts of the deal, concerning the details of the changes to free movement law and Treaty amendments, still have to be implemented separately; and (b) there are limits to the enforceability of the deal.

This chart summarises those two caveats in more detail.

Will the EU deal stick? A lawyer’s view
Will the EU deal stick? A lawyer’s view Photograph: Steve Peers/Full Fact

Attorney general Jeremy Wright says Gove wrong about EU deal not being legally binding

Jeremy Wright, the attorney general, has backed his predecessor Dominic Grieve and Number 10 by saying that Michael Gove is wrong and that the EU agreement is legally binding. He has just issued this statement.

The suggestion that this agreement does not have legal effect until it is incorporated into EU treaties is not correct.

It has legal effect from the point the UK says it intends to remain in the EU, and the European court must take it into account. The job of the European court is to interpret the agreements between the 28 nation states of the EU. This is one of those agreements, with equivalent legal force to other agreements such as treaties.

That is not just my opinion – it is the opinion of this government’s lawyers, lawyers for the EU, and, I suspect, the majority of lawyers in this country.

Jeremy Wright
Jeremy Wright Photograph: Dan Kitwood/Getty Images

The BBC’s Chris Mason says that that the BBC will be releasing more excerpts from Michael Gove’s interview during the day. He had some interesting things to say about immigration, Mason reveals.

Gove's wife Sarah Vine says his hostility to the EU has been an 'obsession' since childhood

Sarah Vine, the Daily Mail columnist who is married to Michael Gove, has written an article describing what the headline calls “the torture of watching my husband choose between his beliefs and his old friend the PM”. It’s well worth a look. Here are the main points.

  • Vine says Gove has always been strongly opposed to the EU.

My husband has many odd and occasionally irritating obsessions: obscure American presidents; Wagner; second-hand bookshops. He also has an irrational aversion to houseplants and quiche.

But few passions trump his dislike of the EU. The profligacy, the back-scratching, the deceit, the endless bureaucracy, the unstoppable march of European federalism — and, above all else, the erosion of British sovereignty.

It’s been an obsession ever since I’ve known him. Old school friends tell me it goes further back still; to when he was a boy growing up in Aberdeen, nagging his parents for a subscription to The Spectator magazine at an age when most kids would have been reading the Beano.

  • She says that, when Cameron announced ministers would be allowed to campaign to leave the EU, Gove was “like a cat on a hot tin roof, locked in an internal struggle of agonising proportions” as he decided whether to back Cameron or follow his anti-EU instincts.
  • She claims she was partly responsible for Cameron thinking that Gove would support him. Cameron was “genuinely, and quite naturally, shocked and hurt” when Gove told him he would back Brexit.

I blame myself in part for any misunderstanding. In earlier, albeit informal, conversations in which Mr Cameron had asked me about Michael’s intentions, I had not been entirely transparent — mostly because I genuinely wasn’t sure which way Michael was going to go, but also because, being frightfully middle-class about it all, I didn’t want to start a row.

  • She said that the Camerons were “some of our dearest friends” and that she was godmother to the Cameron’s youngest daughter. And she recalls how the Camerons attended their wedding in 2001, along with George Osborne, the Times journalist Caitlin Moran and Ed Vaizey, Gove’s best man.
  • She suggests that Boris Johnson’s decision to back Brexit was partly motivated by careerism. Describing the dinner party at Johnson’s house recently attended by the Goves, she says:

Boris, meanwhile, was Boris: very agitated, genuinely tortured as to which way to go, although not for quite the same reasons as Michael.

  • She says Gove hopes the EU referendum won’t affect his relationship with Cameron.

Ultimately, his view is that true friends can have differences of opinion without letting it affect their relationships. I hope and pray that will turn out to be true.

Sarah Vine (right) with Samantha Cameron, the prime minister’s wife, at the state opening of parliament
Sarah Vine (right) with Samantha Cameron, the prime minister’s wife, at the state opening of parliament
 Photograph: PA

Solicitor general says Gove's argument about legality of EU deal is "tenuous"

Robert Buckland, the Conservative solicitor general, has posted a tweet saying that Michael Gove’s claims about the EU agreement not being legal enforceable are “tenuous”.

As the Guardian’s tally of how Tory MPs will vote in the EU referendum show, Buckland is planning to vote for Britain to stay in the EU.

Michael Gove's BBC interview - Summary

You can watch Michael Gove’s interview with the BBC’s Laura Kuenssberg here. It is worth viewing in full not least to see Gove trying to make his point about the ECJ while at the same time refusing to accept that he is accusing David Cameron of being misleading. Even for a man of Gove’s verbal dexterity, that’s a tough challenge, and it is not one that he pulls off entirely convincingly.

Here are the key quotes.

  • Gove said that Cameron’s EU deal was not binding on the European court of justice.

I think it’s an international law declaration, yes. And therefore it has legal force in specific areas. The European court of Justice interprets the European Union treaties. And until this agreement is embodied in treaty change then the European court of justice is not bound by this agreement.

What David Cameron has got is an agreement amongst 28 nation states. It’s an international law declaration, I don’t for a moment discount that. But ultimately it is a matter of European Union law and British law that only treaties have effect and that because these agreements that have been reached are not yet treaty changes the European Court of Justice could take a different view ...

I can only state what the facts are, and the facts are that the European Court of Justice is not bound by this agreement until treaties are changed. And we don’t know when that will be.

  • He claimed he was not accusing Cameron of misleading the public about the status of the deal he secured. Asked if he thought Cameron was being misleading, he replied:

No I don’t believe he is. He’s absolutely right that this is a deal between 28 nations all of whom believe it. But the whole point about the European court of justice is that it stands above the nation states. So the prime minister is right, this is a deal that those 28 nations stand behind. I don’t believe he’s been misleading anyone. But I do think it’s important that people also recognise that the European court of justice stands above every nation state. And ultimately it will decide on the basis of the treaties. And this deal is not yet in the treaties.

  • He said that the deal that Cameron secured was “an improvement on the status quo”.
  • He claimed being outside the EU would allow Britain to “recover its mojo”.

I think that it would be a tremendous opportunity for Britain to recover its mojo, for Britain to be a more flexible, outward looking, creative place. One of the big problems with the European union is that its held us back - our share of trade with the European Union during the time that we’ve been in the EU. And the nature of the European Union is bureaucracy. The failure of the single currency, the problems that its had with migration, all of them point to the fact that it is an old fashioned model, it is sclerotic, it is out of date. Britain could be a leader in shaping the 21st century.

David Cameron (left) and Michael Gove at the Conservative party conference last year
David Cameron (left) and Michael Gove at the Conservative party conference last year Photograph: DAVID HARTLEY/REX Shutterstock

Grieve says Gove is 'wrong' and 'fanciful' and that he should get MoJ lawyers to 'enlighten' him

Here is more from what Dominic Grieve, the former attorney general, told the Today programme about the row between Number 10 and Michael Gove about the legality of the EU renegotiation deal.

  • Grieve said that Gove was wrong and that the EU renegotiation deal had legal force.

Michael Gove is wrong about this. It is quite plain that the treaty, the agreement that we have reached, has legal force. It will have legal force from the day on which we indicated after a referendum that we wish to stay in the European Union. And thereafter the terms of the agreement can be raised in any court case where it is relevant, and the court would have to take it into account.

When Today’s Sarah Montague put it to him that having to “take account” of the deal (which is what Number 10 says the European court of justice will have to do) was not the same as being bound by it, he dismissed that as “semantics”. He told her:

All courts have to take into account and be bound by what is said. I think this is a bit of an exercise in semantics. Ultimately, Michael Gove’s problem appears to be that he just doesn’t trust the court. One of the reasons why I thought the prime minister came back with rather a good deal is that he’s clarified a number of areas of the UK’s status within the EU in a way which I think is really very good. I’ve been arguing this for some time and was pleased to see it. The court can’t ignore that and the fact that it hasn’t yet been incorporated in the treaties in my view is irrelevant. It still cannot be ignored.

  • Grieve conceded that the EU agreement could be interpreted by the European court of justice in a way that Britain might not accept. But that did not mean it did not have legal force, he said.

It’s always possible that an interpretation of the treaty may turn out to be different from what the United Kingdom may argue. All international treaties, which can be interpreted by third parties, have that risk, we’ve signed up to nearly 800 of them since the middle of the 19th Century, quite apart from the EU treaty. That is always a possibility. But the fact that it’s a possibility shouldn’t take us into the realm of the fanciful. It is fanciful to say that the treaty, that the agreement that the prime minister has arrived at, does not have a force in law.

  • He suggested that Gove was being “fanciful” to suggest that the EU deal did not have legal force.
  • He said Cameron’s EU deal went “well beyond” what he expected, which is why other countries were not happy with it.

As attorney general ... I wasn’t always satisfied with the conclusions that the [ECJ] arrived at. That’s why I thought on the two key issues of our special status outside of the eurozone and ever-closer union and the red card, the prime minister’s actually achieved something which is I thought well beyond my expectations in the negotiations, viewing it as a lawyer. I’m not surprised, therefore, that a number of other European countries have complained rather bitterly that the United Kingdom has succeeded in getting itself a rather exceptional status.

  • He said Gove should get lawyers in the Ministry of Justice to “enlighten” him on these matters.

All I can say, I can’t comment as to why Michael Gove has said what he does, I suggest that Michael Gove should consult his own departmental lawyers, who I think would be able to enlighten him as to the status of the agreements.

Grieve is a credible figure because he is not someone who can be guaranteed to always support the Number 10 line. The last time he made a major intervention on an EU referendum matter it was to describe Cameron’s plans for a sovereignty law of some sort as “pointless”.

I’ve taken the quotes from PoliticsHome.

Dominic Grieve, the former attorney general
Dominic Grieve, the former attorney general Photograph: Rob Stothard/Getty Images

David Cameron is trying hard to contain the damage caused by the fact that ministers are taking different sides over the EU referendum, but today we are seeing just how difficult that is going to be: Number 10 and Michael Gove, the justice secretary, are flatly contradicting each other about the legal status of Cameron’s renegotiation deal.

Gove, who is one of the “gang of six” ministers attending cabinet who will campaign for Brexit, says the deal will not be legally binding on the European court of justice. He told the BBC:

The facts are that the European court of justice is not bound by this agreement until treaties are changed and we don’t know when that will be. I do think it’s important that people also realise that the European court of justice stands above every nation state, and ultimately it will decide on the basis of the treaties and this deal is not yet in the treaties.

Number 10 says he’s wrong. A Downing Street spokesman said this morning:

It is not true that this deal is not legally binding. Britain’s new settlement in the EU has legal force and is an irreversible international law decision that requires the European court of justice to take it into account.

Here is our story about the row.

A few minutes ago on the Today programme Dominic Grieve, the Conservative former attorney general, said he agreed with No 10. He told the programme:

Michael Gove is wrong about this.

I will post more from the interview shortly. And I will be covering this row in detail as it develops.

Here is the agenda for the day.

9am: The EEF national manufacturing conference starts. Speakers include Sajid Javid, the business secretary, and Tom Watson, the Labour deputy leader.

10.30am: Alan Johnson, chair of Labour In For Britain, launches the Northern Ireland Stronger In Europe campaign in Belfast.

12pm: David Cameron faces Jeremy Corbyn at PMQs.

12pm: Ryanair holds a media briefing on Brexit.

1pm: Prof John Curtice and Prof Matthew Goodwin launch the NatCent report on the EU referendum.

I will be covering EU issues and PMQs in detail but, as usual, I will also covering other breaking political news as it happens, as well as bringing you the best reaction, comment and analysis from the web. I will post a summary after PMQs and another in the afternoon.

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. Alternatively you could post a question to me on Twitter.

If you think there are any voices that I’m leaving out, particularly political figures or organisations giving alternative views of the stories I’m covering, do please flag them up below the line (include “Andrew” in the post). I can’t promise to include everything, but I do try to be open to as wide a range of perspectives as possible.

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
Astronaut’s spooky image aboard the ISS sparks fear with some convinced they’re looking at an alien
NASA astronaut Don Pettit has finally shared the real story behind a bizarre, tentacled object photographed aboard the International Space Station (ISS) that had many people online convinced it was an alien. This image, which quickly went viral, had social media users scratching their heads and even feeling a little…
The Mary Sue
The Mary Sue
Woman calls out Starbucks barista online for shooting his shot but soon finds out that the internet isn’t on her side
A woman who took to TikTok to call out a Starbucks barista for what she felt was an inappropriate “secret message” on her coffee cup has found that the internet isn’t quite on her side. Ari Chance shared her experience online, expecting widespread agreement, but instead, viewers offered a mixed…
The Mary Sue
The Mary Sue
People Are Trying to Uncancel Joss Whedon. Why?
Let's not do this!
The Mary Sue
The Mary Sue
Los Angeles woman meets her Hinge date at the Santa Monica farmer’s market. 15 minutes in, one question ends it all
Not worth the extra mile.
We Got This Covered
We Got This Covered
Shaquille O’Neal debunks viral DMs he purportedly sent Sabrina Carpenter: ‘The Diesel got way more game than that’
The former NBA star read the fake messages on his podcast, ‘The Big Podcast with Shaq,’ and joked that he has ‘way more game than that’
The Independent UK
The Independent UK
Everything We Know About 'Five Nights at Epstein's': The Viral Game Sweeping US School Campuses
A FNAF-inspired game called 'Five Nights at Epstein's' has gone viral among US students as it takes place in Jeffrey Epstein's Little St. James island, where he lured his victims.
International Business Times UK
International Business Times UK
Fourteen days free
Download the app
One app. One membership.
100+ trusted global sources.
Download on the AppStore Get it on Google Play