We’re wrapping up the politics live blog for today.
To sum up: ministers have sought to see off a potential rebellion by Conservative MPs that could have brought a first defeat over the EU withdrawal bill by partially backing down on the future status of EU human rights measures in UK law.
Read political correspondent Peter Walker’s full report here.
A separate Labour amendment, number 336, to retain the existing principles of EU law within domestic law on or after exit day has been defeated by 315 votes to 296 - a majority of 19.
A Labour amendment to retain the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights in UK law was defeated by just 10 votes: 311 to 301.
Closer vote this time! Ayes 301 and noes 311. That means amendment 46 is rejected but that's much tighter than we've had before. Now amendment 336 being voted on.
— BBC Parliament (@BBCParliament) November 21, 2017
Updated
The amendment, proposed by Labour MP Ellie Reeves, was defeated by 314 votes to 295.
MPs are now voting on the new clause 70 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill at committee stage.
This new clause would ensure that parliament is informed of changes in EU and European Economic Area provisions that might have amended UK laws around family-friendly employment rights and gender equality, and their potential impact.
A result of the division is expected shortly.
Grieve withdrew his amendment 10, to allow challenges to be brought to retained EU law, after solicitor general Robert Buckland said the government would bring forward its own amendment at report stage.
Buckland described the human rights landscape as “complex” and said the government did not want to remove any substantive rights enjoyed by UK citizens.
Grieve responded: “He has made at the despatch box a really important concession, which I much appreciate and clearly reflects the disquiet that has been shown across the House. And I can tell him now that in the light of that, I will not be pressing my amendment to a vote.”
Grieve wins key concession
Ministers have offered a concession in an attempt to quell a potential rebellion by Tory MPs that could have resulted in the first defeat on the EU withdrawal bill.
They are promising to review the way in which human rights would be affected by changes to the charter of fundamental rights caused by Brexit.
The promise comes after Dominic Grieve, the former attorney general, laid down an amendment with significant Tory support calling for the charter to be taken into UK law after the EU exit.
He has told the Guardian that he will not be pushing for a vote on the issue - which was winnable - following the assurance.
What’s that sound? Sighs of relief across Westminster from political hacks, it would appear, as Guardian columnist Gaby Hinsliff tweets:
HAPPY CHRISTMAS EVERYONE https://t.co/Ju71M5s6pd
— Gaby Hinsliff (@gabyhinsliff) November 21, 2017
It's now impossible to call a general election in 2017 (1/5)
— Chris Hanretty (@chrishanretty) November 21, 2017
Chris Hanretty is professor of politics at Royal Holloway, University of London, so should know what he is talking about.
Updated
A former US diplomat who chaired previous political negotiations in Northern Ireland says the current crisis could bring a push for Irish unity.
Richard Haass said a combination of poor leadership, Brexit and failure to deal with the legacy of the past had created the problems facing Stormont.
The president of the New York-based Council on Foreign Relations tweeted:
Northern Ireland at a crisis point, the result of poor leadership, Brexit, & a failure to deal with the past. agree that the current impasse likely to lead to restructuring of its politics and/or push for Irish unification. hoping it does not lead to any resumption of violence.
— Richard N. Haass (@RichardHaass) November 21, 2017
In 2013 Haass was drafted in to chair crunch talks aimed at averting the collapse of powersharing. Despite weeks of cross party negotiations in Belfast, the diplomat failed to find a breakthrough on the thorny issues of flags, parading and the legacy of the Troubles.
He had previously served as special envoy to the region under president George W Bush.
Robert Mugabe really has been around for a very long time, as BBC parliamentary reporter Esther Webber tweets.
woah. The first time Mugabe was mentioned in the Commons was 46 years ago, by Sir Alec Douglas-Home
— Esther Webber (@estwebber) November 21, 2017
Back to the fall of Mugabe for a moment. Foreign secretary Boris Johnson said the end of the Zimbabwe leader’s 37-year reign appeared to be a “moment of hope” for the country’s people.
With Emmerson Mnangagwa - a former Mugabe ally nicknamed the Crocodile - expected to be sworn in as president by Thursday, Johnson said: “I think it’s very important at the moment that we don’t focus too much on the personalities; let’s concentrate on the potential, the hope for Zimbabwe.
“What we need to see now is free, fair democratic elections and above all not a transition from one despotic rule to another. Working with our South African friends, with everybody in the region, that is what we are going to be encouraging, that is the choice we are going to encourage the Zimbabweans to make.”
Johnson added that Mugabe played an creating an independent nation, but allowed his legacy to be squandered: “His country went to rack and ruin and in some cases his people were driven to the brink of starvation. It’s time now for a new future.”
Updated
Afternoon summary
- Dominic Raab, a justice minister, has told MPs that people’s rights won’t be affected by the government’s decision not to incorporate the EU charter of fundamental rights into UK law. He was speaking during day three of the committee stage debate on the EU withdrawal bill, which transfers almost all EU law into UK law apart from the charter. Opposition MPs and some Tories have complained about this aspect of the bill and when the debate finishes at 8.45pm a range of amendments covering this and other issues will be put to a vote. (See 12.58pm for a guide to the main ones.) Explaining why the charter was not needed, Raab told MPs:
All of those substantive laws, principles and rights of which the charter is a reflection of the source will already be converted into domestic law by this bill - so it is not necessary to retain the charter in order to retain such substantive rights.
He also promised to allay concerns on this issue by publishing a memo within a fortnight showing how rights will be protected even though the charter of fundamental rights is not being included in UK law. (See 3.19pm.)
- Arlene Foster, the DUP leader, has criticised the Irish government for issuing an ultimatum to London over Brexit. (See 4.21pm.)
- Downing Street has insisted European Court of Justice jurisdiction over EU nationals in the UK will end after a two-year transition period following Brexit. (See 12.19pm.)
That’s all from me for today.
A colleague will be picking the blog up later to cover the end of the debate and the votes.
Ian Blackford, the SNP leader at Westminster, has written an open letter to Jeremy Corbyn criticising Labour for not supporting an amendment to finance legislation intended to stop the UK leaving the customs union. The Scottish Labour MP Ian Murray tabled the amendment, which would have exempted EU goods from customs duties after Brexit. Labour MPs were ordered to abstain, and the amendment was defeated by 311 votes to 76. Murray was one of 28 Labour MPs who voted in favour.
In his letter Blackford says:
Your shadow Treasury minister stated that Labour’s position is to leave all options on the table. Last night’s vote was a chance to take a no-deal scenario off the table, something which would give businesses clarity and would send a positive message to our partners in Europe.
Passing the amendments would have paved the way to stay in the EEA [European Economic Area], as that would have been the only practical way to achieve what was proposed. From there, the UK government could have negotiated from a position of strength and removed the uncertainty of a no-deal scenario. If it then wished to exit the EEA and create new trade and customs arrangements with the world largest single market, it could still propose a new bill to parliament for these purposes.
Blackford used stronger language in a press release, saying:
It was shocking and unbelievable to witness Labour MPs voting against or abstaining on a perfectly sensible amendment tabled by a Scottish Labour MP to try and stop the worst excesses of a cliff edge Hard Brexit.
Barry Gardiner, the shadow international trade minister, explained Labour’s reasons for not supporting the amendment on Twitter.
1/3
— Barry Gardiner (@BarryGardiner) November 20, 2017
Amendment would have stopped Treasury from applying any tariffs or quotas to goods in or out of EU after Brexit. It did NOT keep us in Customs Union as EU could still impose tariffs on us! https://t.co/0KbD735vEv
2/3...
— Barry Gardiner (@BarryGardiner) November 20, 2017
WTO’s ‘most favoured nation’ rule says unless you have a specific trade agreement you must give all countries the same tariff & quota deal as you give the most favoured.
So if you can’t give tariffs to EU you can’t to anyone else either! https://t.co/0KbD735vEv
3/3
— Barry Gardiner (@BarryGardiner) November 20, 2017
So amendment would mean:
i)Under No Deal the U.K. could not impose ANY tariffs or quotas.
ii)even if we had a Customs Union Agreement with the EU but had a dispute over dumping we would not be able to impose any countervailing tariff to defend our industry
Hope that helps!
Updated
In the EU withdrawal bill debate the Tory Brexiter Sir Edward Leigh said in some respects the EU charter of fundamental rights actually undermined rights. He said:
There’s been a cosy consensus so far in this debate that everything about European human rights is wonderful and we want to transfer it into our own law.
Actually, many of us think that the advancement of European so-called human rights has been at the detriment of the rights of other people, particularly religious people, to find their own space.
When we retain or regain Parliamentary sovereignty in this House and through our democracy we can start asserting the right to real human rights.
He was backed by his fellow Tory Brexiter Sir Bill Cash who said:
I would also add, as I have said before in this debate, that it is up to us to make our own laws and we can make them, we can listen to the arguments, we can make the amendments, we can recognise rights of human rights and all the other things as and when.
The Treasury has published its customs bill today. Only, as the government press notice explains, it is now called the taxation (cross-border trade) bill.
Labour criticised it for giving extensive delegated powers to ministers. In a statement Peter Dowd, the shadow chief secretary to the Treasury, said:
The publication of the government’s bill on the establishment of the UK’s future customs and tariff regime is yet another example of government legislation that gives large swathes of delegated powers to ministers with no reference to any meaningful parliamentary oversight. It is shocking the level of contempt this Conservative government has for parliament.
Labour is committed to ensuring that any future changes to the UK’s customs and tariff regime face full parliamentary scrutiny and be considered on a similar footing to changes to the UK tax system. We therefore intend to amend the taxation (cross-border trade) bill to reflect that commitment.
Turning away from Brexit for a moment, Theresa May has issued a statement welcoming the resignation of Robert Mugabe. She said:
The resignation of Robert Mugabe provides Zimbabwe with an opportunity to forge a new path free of the oppression that characterised his rule. In recent days we have seen the desire of the Zimbabwean people for free and fair elections and the opportunity to rebuild the country’s economy under a legitimate government.
As Zimbabwe’s oldest friend we will do all we can to support this, working with our international and regional partners to help the country achieve the brighter future it so deserves.
Greg Hands, the international trade minister, said this morning at the Brexit conference in London that the UK could lose the benefits of some of the EU’s 40-plus free trade deals after Brexit, HuffPost’s Owen Bennett reports. But Hands also said that the UK would definitely keep the benefits of the main ones and that it was in a “very, very good space” to replace the others.
Foster tells Irish prime minister not to issue threats over Northern Ireland
In an interview with the BBC Arlene Foster, the DUP leader, criticised the Irish government for issuing an ultimatum to London over Brexit. Referring to the statement from Leo Varadkar, the Irish prime minister, about how he would stop the Brexit talks moving on to trade unless he got a written guarantee from the UK that there would be no hard border with Northern Ireland - a threat reaffirmed by the Irish foreign minister today (see 2.39pm) - Foster said:
He should know better than anybody that you don’t play around with Northern Ireland to effect change in other places. What I would like to see the Irish government doing is working with Northern Ireland, working with actually the Westminster government, to bring about a Brexit that works, yes for Northern Ireland but also for the Republic of Ireland.
The DUP wants the UK to leave the customs union, a decision that the Irish government and the EU will inevitably lead to some sort of border controls between Ireland and the Northern Ireland. But all sides want to avoid a hard border. Asked how she would solve this conundrum, Foster replied:
The solution comes in the trade negotiations. And that’s the point I’m making. We need to be able to move to the second phase so that we can actually deal with the details.
There is need for greater clarity on how the UK law will develop after Brexit, a former lord chief justice has said. As the Press Association reports, Lord Thomas, a former lord chief justice of England and Wales, told the Lords EU justice sub committee that data law is one area where a possible difficulty could be faced.
Arguing that “the law in Europe is not standing still, it is moving at a huge pace”, Thomas told peers:
The [EU withdrawal] bill is clear about freezing the law but it is not at all clear about how you keep it up-to-date - therefore I think that is a real problem.
The second problem we face, and I don’t think this has been thought through entirely either, is to the extent to which the supreme court of the United Kingdom maybe asked to depart and develop slightly different jurisprudence to the CJEU (court of justice of the European Union) - what impact that will have on people’s willingness to use English law if it doesn’t follow the large regime?
It is a question that has been raised with me. I don’t think there has been any real exploration of it but it is the development of the law for the future to which very very little thought, I think, has been properly given.
I do think those two issues are of great importance.
The Green MP Caroline Lucas says Ken Clarke was right in what he said about the government wanting to get rid of the charter of fundamental rights just to appease rightwingers.
Ken Clarke hits nail on the head - reason Govt is trying to delete European Charter of Human Rights from UK law is because Telegraph will froth at the mouth at fact that it contains the words ‘European’ & ‘rights’ #WithdrawalBill
— Caroline Lucas (@CarolineLucas) November 21, 2017
I covered what Clarke said earlier, at 3.06pm, but I have beefed it up with a direct quote. You may need to refresh the page to get the update to appear.
Raab seeks to allay concerns about charter of fundamental rights by publishing memo showing rights protected
This is what Dominic Raab told MPs a few minutes ago (see 3.02pm) about promising to publish a memo within a fortnight showing how rights will be protected even though the charter of fundamental rights is not being included in UK law.
With this in mind, it is right ... for me to reaffirm the government’s commitment, that I think [David Davis] made to the select committee, to publish a detailed memorandum setting out how each article of the charter will be reflected in UK law after we leave. And I can confirm that we will publish that by 5 December. I hope that reassures [Chris Leslie] ...
So if [Leslie] or any other honourable members feel our analysis is deficient or we have missed out a substantive right that risks being removed by not retaining the charter, once that memorandum has been considered, I will be very happy to sit down with [Leslie] and any other honourable members and discuss the issue again.
Raab also said that the memo would be published before report stage.
He also said that he wanted to continue his dialogue with Dominic Grieve about the bill. Grieve asked why Raab had not addressed some of the points raised by his own amendments in his speech. Raab said Robert Buckand, the solicitor general, would be speaking about amendments relating to schedule 1 when he speaks later in the debate.
Ken Clarke, the Conservative pro-European, says Raab has not explained why the government is getting rid of the charter of fundamental rights. He says that if, as the government claims, all rights are being maintained, then what is the point of getting rid of it? He says he thinks the government is doing this because it contains two words, “European” and “rights”, that hard-right anti-Europeans in the Conservative party hate.
If it is doing no harm, why is the government going to such lengths to get rid of it as the one specific change in this bill? Presumably it’s because the words “European” and “rights” in it. And this was intended as a Daily Telegraph gesture to the hard rightwing of my party.
Raab regrets the tone of Clarke’s comment. He says he hopes to address his point later in his speech.
Updated
In the Commons Dominic Raab, the justice minister, has just announced that the government will publish a memorandum showing how rights will be protected under the EU withdrawal bill. This is intended to neutralise Chris Leslie’s amendment that would require the government to publish a report on this issue. (See 12.58pm.)
Labour MSPs decide not to suspend Dugdale over her unauthorised 'I'm a Celebrity' absence
Turning away from the debate, the Scottish Labour party has announce that Kezia Dugdale, the former Scottish Labour leader, will not be suspended for going AWOL so she can participate in I’m a Celebrity … Get Me Out of Here. In a statement James Kelly, the Scottish Labour business manager at Holyrood, said:
The Scottish parliamentary Labour group today discussed the decision of Kezia Dugdale to take an unauthorised leave of absence from her parliamentary duties.
Today, the group concluded that Kezia Dugdale would not face suspension.
In accordance with standard procedure, Kezia Dugdale will be interviewed on her return to parliament and have the opportunity to present her account of events.
Raab is now talking about Dominic Grieve’s amendment 297. (See 12.58pm.) He says this would introduce uncertainty into the law.
Back in the Commons Dominic Raab, the justice minister, is responding now on behalf of the government.
He says the bill effectively takes a snapshot of EU law on Brexit day, and transposes that into UK law.
He says Chris Leslie’s NC16 (see 12.58pm) is unnecessary. The government is committed to protecting rights, he says.
Having a report of the kind proposed by Leslie’s amendment would not help parliament exercise scrutiny, he says.
He says Lord Falconer, the former Labour lord chancellor, is on the record as saying the charter of fundamental rights does not introduce new rights.
UK aerospace firms are already losing out on business due to the Brexit vote, MPs have heard. As the Press Association reports, Simon Henley, president-elect of the Royal Aeronautical Society, said companies are being stopped from bidding for contracts as part of the Galileo satellite programme because it is funded by the European Union.
Giving evidence to the Commons business committee, he said the UK has previously been “very successful” in supplying the €10bn (£8.9bn) system managed by the European Space Agency. Henley said:
We have had companies now reporting to us that they are being excluded from bidding for contracts on Galileo.
Although membership of the European Space Agency is not part of the EU discussions because it’s not an EU body, many of the contracts including Galileo are EU-funded and it’s a requirement that the companies that participate and get funding and bid for contracts are part of an EU country.
We’re already seeing contracts being turned away from UK industry because of the uncertainty.
Dublin says even £40bn will not unlock Brexit trade talks unless UK offer guarantee over Irish border
The Irish government has said that, even if London offers around £40bn to the EU, that alone will not be enough to open trade talks. In an interview with the Evening Standard, Simon Coveney, the Irish foreign minister, has restated the threat that the Irish prime minister Leo Varadkar issued on Friday when he said Ireland would block a move to trade talks unless the UK gives a formal written guarantee that there will be no hard border with Northern Ireland.
Coveney told the Standard:
Anybody who thinks that just because the financial settlement issue gets resolved …that somehow Ireland will have a hand put on the shoulder and be told, ‘Look, it’s time to move on.’ Well, we’re not going to move on ...
This is a much bigger issue than trade. This is about division on the island of Ireland ...
I will not be an Irish foreign minister that presides over a negotiation which is not prioritising peace on the island of Ireland.
Updated
Paul Blomfield, the shadow Brexit minister, is speaking now. He says the bill as currently drafted does not achieve the government’s stated aim of “non-regression” in terms of people’s rights.
The failure to transpose the charter [of fundamental rights) into EU retained law creates a gap in our statute book and as the Equality and Human Rights Commission has stated the bill as it stands will not achieve the government’s stated aim of non-regression on social justice issues and that’s something very serious for this House to take account of.
Updated
Grieve has tabled another amendment, amendment 10, not mentioned in the summary of key amendments I posted earlier. (See 12.58pm.) This would allow retained EU law to be challenged on the grounds that it is in breach of the general principles of EU law.
He says he may withdraw this amendment, but only if he gets some assurances from ministers.
Back in the Commons Dominic Grieve is speaking in the EU withdrawal bill debate.
He says the bill will create a strange new category of UK law, “retained EU law”. It will become domestic law, or semi-domestic law. Or “feral law”, he says. It will be able to override UK law, he says.
He refers to his two principle amendments. (These are 8 and 297 - see 12.58pm.) He says one solution might just be to keep the charter of fundamental rights (amendment 8). But he says MPs have pointed out some disadvantages to this. So that approach is “probably wrong”, he says.
But he says his other amendments would maintain aspects of EU law in other ways.
This is what the Commons briefing note (pdf) says about “retained direct EU legislation”.
The EU law converted by clause 3 of the EUW Bill will be known as ‘retained direct EU legislation’, which the Government intends to be a new form of domestic legislation that is neither primary nor secondary legislation. The government has said that paragraph 1(1) of Schedule 1 will not affect the ability to challenge “existing domestic secondary legislation on grounds other than the validity of the relevant EU instruments”. It is unclear whether retained EU law, which is neither primary or secondary legislation, will be subject to judicial review on administrative law grounds.
Here is more on what happened after Theresa May met DUP and Sinn Fein leaders in Number 10. (See 12.58pm.)
After meeting the prime minister, the DUP leader Arlene Foster said Sinn Fein’s “glorification of terrorism” was making the restoration of power sharing harder. She explained:
We did say to the prime minister that the glorification of terrorism at the weekend at the Sinn Fein conference was making it more difficult to bring around devolution. We are talking about a deal unionism and nationalism can live with. They are talking about nationalism and that’s it.
Foster was referring to the way some Sinn Fein delegates roared their approval at the party conference in Dublin at the weekend when told the late Martin McGuinness was a “proud member of the IRA”.
The Sinn Fein president Gerry Adams dismissed Foster’s complaint when he spoke to reporters outside Number 10. He said:
I didn’t see any glorification of anyone at the Ard Fheis [Sinn Fein conference]. I also, standing outside the office of the British prime minister, want to refute the use of this term ‘terrorism’.
Pejorative terms like that, which are about the sons and daughters of families, husbands and wives of families, who happened to serve in the Irish Republican Army and who died in the conflict, I don’t use those terms. So let’s have a wee bit of sense about this.
Updated
Grieve says there is a danger of a hiatus after March 2019. Some rights that currently exist may get lost, he says.
He says he does not think ministers intend to diminish rights. But he says rights could be lost inadvertently.
The Conservative MP Victoria Prentis asks Grieve if he agrees that the charter of fundamental rights is not the best way to enshrine these rights in law. There should be a modern alternative, she suggests.
Grieve says the amendment they are discussing (NC16 - see 12.58pm) is only asking for a report.
He says the reputation of the modern Conservative party will “fray at the edges” if it is not seen to be taking this issue seriously.
I strongly commend to my honourable and right honourable friends that they should pay some attention to this because it’s an issue that’s not going to go away, and if I may say also to them if we don’t see to act on it then this idea of a modern Conservative party I think starts to fray at the edges.
It is not a place I would wish my party’s reputation to be seen to be ignoring these key issues.
But Grieve says he is also wary of the endless extension of rights. He says recognising certain rights can have important implications for public spending. And he says there is a risk that extending rights can also diminish their importance. It is concerns like this that make him a Conservative, he says.
Updated
Dominic Grieve, the Conservative former attorney general, is speaking now. He starts by saying he does not agree with Anna Soubry’s critique of Chris Leslie’s NC16. (See 1.12pm.) He says Leslie’s amemdment is making MPs focus on the importance of the charter of fundamental rights.
He says over the last 40 years countries have developed the idea of human rights. He knows that to some of his colleagues this is anathema. It has had them chocking over their cornflakes. But he welcomes this trend, he says. And he says that those who have gained most are the most vulnerable.
Leslie says he finds it hard to understand why ministers are saying both that the charter does not create new rights for Britons, and that it is essential to get rid of it. The two claims are contradictory, he suggests.
He says that is all the more reason for getting the government to publish a report explaining exactly what impact getting rid of the charter would have.
He suggests Theresa May decided to get rid of the charter as a “scalp” she could offer to Tory Eurosceptics.
Leslie says he also wants to speak in favour of another amendment, covering ‘Francovich’ damages. The bill as it stands says, in schedule 1, paragraph 4, there will be “no right in domestic law on or after exit day to damages in accordance with the rule in Francovich”.
This is what the Commons briefing paper (pdf) says about ‘Francovich’ damages.
In the Francovich case in 199178 the CJEU (then the ECJ) held that in some circumstances states have to compensate individuals or businesses for damage they suffer because the state has failed to transpose a directive, or done so late or poorly.
The court in that case held that the Italian government had breached its EU obligations by not implementing the insolvency directive on time, and was liable to compensate the workers’ loss resulting from the breach. The court further held that the damages for such breaches should be available before national courts, and that to establish state liability on the basis of the failure to implement a directive, claimants had to prove that:
the law infringed was intended to confer rights on individuals;
the breach was “sufficiently serious”, i.e. the member state had manifestly and gravely disregarded the limits of its discretion;
there was a direct causal link between state’s failure to implement the directive and the loss suffered.
The principle of state liability for damage caused to individuals by breaches of EC law was clarified five years later in the judgments in Brasserie du Pêcheur and in Factortame (1996), when Francovich was extended beyond a failure to implement a directive to any State action incompatible with Treaty provisions or other EU laws which grant rights to individuals.
Leslie says, at the very least, ministers need to explain why the bill is getting rid of ‘Francovich’ damages.
The Conservative MP Victoria Prentis says she was one of the lawyers acting for the government when David Davis sued the then home secretary (Theresa May) - see 1.07pm. She says she does not think the charter has to be in UK law for rights to be protected.
The Conservative MP Anna Soubry intervenes to say she has a complaint about Leslie’s amendment. (See 12.58am.) It is “awfully wet”, she says. She suggests it should go much further.
Leslie says he is trying to get as much support as possible.
The Labour MP Chris Leslie, who was briefly shadow chancellor in 2015, is opening the debate. He is proposing his NC16. (See 12.58pm.)
He says the government said the EU withdrawal bill would incorporate EU law fully into UK law. But it does not do that, because the charter of fundamental rights is not included.
The Conservative MP Sir Desmond Swayne intervenes. He says when the charter as adopted, Labour said it would have no more influence over UK law than the Beano. So the bill just enacts what Labour promised, Swayne says.
Leslie says the charter does affect UK law, and does give people rights.
Labour’s Hilary Benn, chair of the Commons Brexit committee, says that David Davis, the Brexit secretary, illustrates this well, because he relied on the charter when he took the government to court over a privacy issue when he was a backbencher.
Leslie says Benn has stolen his punchline.
This is what the Commons briefing note (pdf) that I flagged up earlier about today’s debate said about this case.
When David Davis thought the provisions of the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act 2014 violated privacy, he turned to the charter, and the high court in the Davis case noted that article 8 of the charter “clearly goes further, is more specific, and has no counterpart” in other privacy laws.
MPs resume debate on EU withdrawal bill
MPs are now resuming their debate on the EU withdrawal bill. According to the Labour whips, there may be as many as seven votes.
There are no Statements or UQs today. We expect Day 3 of #EUWithdrawalBill to start about 12:45. There is one big group for debate which should last 8 hours. We therefore expect up to 7 votes from around 8:45 tonight (that’s nearly two hours of voting).
— Labour Whips (@labourwhips) November 21, 2017
You can read all the bill documents relevant to today’s debate here. The most useful may be this one, the list of all amendments to the bill (pdf).
Today MPs are debating amendments related to the charter of fundamental rights, challenges to the validity of retained EU law, general principles of EU law and ‘Francovich’ damages.
This 37-page briefing paper (pdf) from the House of Commons library explains the issues that will be debated today in considerable detail.
And here is a guide to the key amendments being debated today. These are the ones likely to be put to a vote.
Chris Leslie’s new clause 16 (NC16): This would require the government to produce a report on the implications of removing the charter of fundamental rights from UK law, including the implications for the rights of British citizens.
Tom Brake’s new clause 78 (NC78): This would ensure that all equality rights people have under EU law are enshrined in UK law after Brexit.
Ellie Reeves’ new clause 79 (NC79): This would ensure that, after Brexit, the government has to inform parliament if the EU gives workers new rights that would have applied to Britons if the UK was still an EU member. And it would require the government to consider implementing them in the UK too.
Dominic Grieve’s amendment 297: This would amend the line in the bill saying “The principle of the supremacy of EU law does not apply to any enactment or rule of law passed or made on or after exit day”, taking out the words “or rule of law”, so that it just reads: “The principle of the supremacy of EU law does not apply to any enactment passed or made on or after exit day.” This would increase the extent to which the principle of EU law supremacy continued to apply after Brexit.
Labour’s amendment 285: This would help to ensure that the existing rules and regulations continue to apply during the transition.
Dominic Grieve’s amendment 298: This effectively backs up Grieve’s amendment 297 (see above.)
Dominic Grieve’s amendment 8: This would allow the charter of fundamental rights to continue to apply in UK law after Brexit.
Theresa May has been meeting DUP and Sinn Fein leaders in Number t10 today. Afterwards she issued this statement.
This morning I met the leaderships of Sinn Fein and the Democratic Unionist party to discuss the ongoing political stalemate in Northern Ireland.
I made clear the determination of this government to re-establish the fully functioning, inclusive devolved administration that works for everyone in Northern Ireland.
I also reiterated our steadfast support for the Belfast agreement and its successors. For their part both the DUP and Sinn Fein expressed their commitment to seeing Stormont back up and running.
From our discussions it is clear that the issues dividing the parties are relatively small in number, focusing mainly around culture, legacy, identity and the future stability of the devolved institutions.
While not in any way underestimating the challenges involved, I believe that a way forward can be found and an agreement reached.
It is therefore imperative that the parties re-engage in intensive discussions next week aimed at resolving the outstanding issues so that the assembly can meet and an executive be formed.
The Leave.EU campaign has issued a statement from its founder, Aaron Banks, condemning the government for proposing to increase its “Brexit bill” offer to the EU. Banks said:
Theresa the appeaser has once again shown she is far from up to the task of leading Britain out of the European Union.
The increased offer of €40bn is an absolute disgrace. Our campaign has been inundated with complaints from members of the British public who are rightly asking why our government is happy to offer such a huge sum to Brussels when we need to be investing more here in our public services.
Why we are even contemplating paying a penny to leave a club we run a £70bn trade deficit with baffles me.
Interestingly, the press statement also quotes Jacob Rees-Mogg approvingly, describing him as “one of the few remaining true conservatives”.
The Conservative MP Vicky Ford asks Johnson if he is being advised that the UK may need more time for Brexit talks given what is happening in Germany.
Johnson brushes this aside, suggesting he thinks Angela Merkel’s failure to strike a coalition deal will not be an issue.
Downing Street has insisted that European Court of Justice jurisdiction over EU nationals in the UK will end after a two-year transition period following Brexit, the Press Association reports. The PA report goes on:
Reports suggested that a meeting of senior ministers chaired by Theresa May on Monday evening had left the door open for some continuing involvement of the Luxembourg court after Brexit.
Immigration minister Brandon Lewis fuelled speculation that the prime minister was preparing to make concessions to the EU’s demand for ECJ oversight of citizens’ rights, when he told MPs that the matter was “part of the negotiations”.
But May’s official spokesman told a regular Westminster media briefing that the government expected the ECJ’s role to be unchanged during an “implementation period” of around two years following the official Brexit date in March 2019, but that “post that period, the jurisdiction of the ECJ will come to an end”.
The spokesman declined to confirm reports that Monday’s meeting had given May the green light to make a higher offer to Brussels on the “divorce bill” the UK will pay to settle its liabilities on quitting the EU.
May is expected to signal to European council President Donald Tusk at a meeting in the Belgian capital on Friday that she is ready to consider a settlement in the region of £38bn, well short of the £53bn being sought by Brussels.
But she is not thought likely to name a precise figure which Britain is prepared to pay until she has a clear idea of what kind of trade deal is available with the remaining EU, with Downing Street insisting that “nothing’s agreed until everything’s agreed”.
May’s spokesman would say only that “specific figures or scenarios are all subject to negotiation”.
The questions at the lobby were triggered by these tweets last night from ITV’s political editor Robert Peston.
Perhaps more important, that cabinet sub committee concedes European Court of Justice could have role in enforcing rights of 3m EU migrants in Britain after Brexit. This will be seen by EU as big shift by UK, but more ardent Brexiteers will hate.
— Robert Peston (@Peston) November 20, 2017
Big government shift on divorce bill and future role of European Court of Justice. What does it mean? https://t.co/678mU0b3QB
— Robert Peston (@Peston) November 20, 2017
Emily Thornberry, the shadow foreign secretary, says Johnson told the BBC before the Brexit referendum that nothing would change on the Irish border if the UK left the EU. Can he give the same guarantee today?
Johnson says this is a key issue. But he can repeat the pledge that there will be no hard border, he says. All MPs understand the consequences, social and spiritual he says, of having a hard border.
Thornberry says MPs will not have missed that, like so many of Johnson’s promises, an unconditional guarantee has become a promise conditional on what the Irish do. She says when he gave the Sun four red lines on Brexit, Ireland was not covered. Will he make that a red line today.
Johnson says there can be no return to a hard border, north/south or even east/west.
The SNP’s Stephen Gethins says the head of the Foreign Office told MPs last week that more diplomat would go to Europe after Brexit. How many, and at what cost?
Johnson says at least 50 more diplomats will be despatched to Europe. He says he is concerned that some of the UK’s bilateral relationships with European countries have been allowed to ossify.
Johnson says this point cannot be repeated too often. Eastern European countries in particular need to hear this. The UK is committed to European security, and to Nato, he says.
Boris Johnson is speaking about Brexit now. He says the future partnership paper published by the government in September on security cooperation after Brexit has had a good reception.
Asked what progress has been made in reaching a deal on these issues, Johnson says these issues are not at the centre of the talks at the moment. But it is understood that the UK “will be there” for defence purposes after Brexit. The UK’s commitment to the defence of Europe is unconditional, he says.
Boris Johnson, the foreign secretary, is taking questions in the Commons. Brexit has not come up yet.
The government’s decision to agree in principle to pay more to the EU is potentially awkward for Johnson because he has been one of the cabinet Brexiters most reluctant to agree to this. The first edition Daily Telegraph splash reflect this.
TELEGRAPH: Boris yields on Brexit divorce #tomorrowspaperstoday pic.twitter.com/MROi1dilET
— Neil Henderson (@hendopolis) November 20, 2017
Johnson made his famous “go whistle” comment about paying large sums to the EU at a previous foreign office question. For the record, this is exactly what he said.
The Conservative MP Philip Hollobone asked:
Since we joined the common market on 1 January 1973 until the date we leave, we will have given the EU and its predecessors, in today’s money in real terms, a total of £209bn. Will the foreign secretary make it clear to the EU that if it wants a penny piece more, it can go whistle?
And Johnson replied:
I am sure that my honourable friend’s words will have broken like a thunderclap over Brussels and they will pay attention to what he has said. He makes a very valid point; the sums that I have seen that they propose to demand from this country seem to me to be extortionate, and I think that to “go whistle” is an entirely appropriate expression.
Johnson was referring generally to reports that the EU was demanding up to €100bn, although he has never specified at what point (€50bn? €60bn? €80bn? etc) the bill gets “extortionate” or, indeed, whether €40bn would be “extortionate”. Hopefully someone will ask him, probably in the topical questions bit starting at 12.15pm.
The live feed has gone down but we’re not missing anything because, as my colleague Peter Walker reports, Davis did not take questions.
Davis taking no questions after speech to Brexit event. In fact he's so keen to sprint off he almost trips over a power cord on way out.
— Peter Walker (@peterwalker99) November 21, 2017
Davis says he has three goals: moving the talks on to trade in December, then striking a good deal, and then making sure Brexit works for Britain.
And that’s it. Davis has finished. That was a very basic speech, and devoid of news.
Davis says his department is not the “department for getting a deal, come what may”. It is the department for leaving the EU, he says.
The UK wants a deal. But Davis says his department is preparing for every eventuality.
He says this is a contingency planning exercise, not an indication that the government wants no deal.
Davis is talking about the transition period.
The UK should be free to sign trade deals during this period, with a view to them being implemented as soon as the transition is over, he says.
And the transition should be time-limited.
Davis says we need to be ambitious in terms of thinking about what deal we strike with the EU.
It needs to be “completely new”, he says, and not a copy-and-paste version of another trade deal.
Davis says the UK and the EU have made tangible progress in the Brexit talks.
But it is becoming clearer and clearer that the talks need to move on to trade, he says.
Davis says it is in the interests of both the UK and the EU to have a deal.
(As Davis speaks, Boris Johnson, the foreign secretary, has just stood up in the Commons to start answering Foreign Office questions.)
Davis says he is firmly in favour of there being a Brexit deal. (The title of the conference is is addressing is: Deal or No Deal - What are the Options?)
Davis says the UK and the EU are “in touching distance” of a deal on the rights of EU nationals.
Davis says he will be talking about the state of the Brexit negotiations, and the role the ECR (European Conservatives and Reformists) and Conservative politicians can play.
He starts, though, by stressing that the UK remains of a member of the EU until it leaves. He pays tribute to Tory MEPs.
He says he does not always agree with the European parliament. But MEPs have played an important role, not least by highlighting the importance of protecting rights of EU nationals.
David Davis's speech
David Davis, the Brexit secretary, is about to start his speech at the European Conservatives and Reformists group conference.
Open Britain, which is campaigning for a soft Brexit, has put out this statement from the Labour MP Chuka Umunna condemning what Owen Paterson said about wanting the UK to become a low-tax, deregulated economy like Singapore. (See 10.20am.) Umunna said:
The mask has slipped again as Brextremists like Owen Paterson reveal the real agenda behind their obsession with wrenching the UK out of the single market and the customs union.
Their hard Brexit vision is set out for everyone to see. Cut taxes for big corporations while cutting protections for workers, lowering our food safety standards and opening up our NHS to privatisation.
This hard-right blueprint for Britain will appal many people who voted leave and they have every right to keep an open mind about our future relationship with Europe if the Brexit delivered is nothing like the one they were promised.
Tory MP Andrew Bridgen hints he could vote against £40bn 'Brexit bill' payment to EU
The pro-Brexit Conservative MP Andrew Bridgen told BBC News a few minutes ago that, if reports that the cabinet has agreed in principle to pay £40bn to the EU as it leaves were true, that was “disappointing”. He went on:
If that’s the case, I think it’s premature. And I think on the eve of a budget I think the timing is also not very clever.
Echoing the argument made by Iain Duncan Smith and Jacob Rees-Mogg (see 9.53am), he argued that events in Germany meant now was not the time to offer the EU more.
Angela Merkel can’t form a government. She is probably going to have to go for another general election in Germany. She may well not not the chancellor, her ratings are falling. There could be no meaningful negotiations with the European Union going forward for a couple of months at least. So why would you want to make concessions now when you don’t have to?
Bridgen said any “Brexit bill” decision would have to be approved by the House of Commons. He hinted he might vote against, saying:
At the end of the day, to vote for a deal, and not go to WTO, which is a deal we could have for free, I’ve got to be able to look my constituents in North West Leicestershire, who voted overwhelmingly to leave, 61% to 39%, in the eye and say that I believe this is a good way to spend taxpayers’ money ....
Let’s see what we are going to get in return. We currently don’t know what we are going to get in return, what sort of trade deal they might offer us. And it’s bizarre that we’re going to pay potentially £40bn, or offer to pay £40bn, to allow the EU to have a €90bn trade surplus with us. That’s not a great deal. But let’s see where we get to.
I just worry that if we are giving ground at this stage, with so much time left before we leave the European Union, that the EU will come back for more. In my book you can’t feed a monster.
He also claimed that, if both sides were willing, a UK-EU trade deal could be agreed in “a matter of weeks”.
The fact is we have full regulatory equivalence with the European Union, so a trade deal with the European Union is not going to be anywhere near as complex as a trade deal with Canada or anywhere else, because we don’t need to level the playing field. We’ve got a level playing field. It’s basically a matter of, if I’m the UK, ‘We don’t want tariffs on cars, what do you want?’ Just go through the list, because we have full regulatory equivalence at the moment. So a trade deal, with the will to do one, can be done in a very, very short time, a matter of weeks.
And while we’re on the subject of Michel Barnier, in the light of what the cabinet’s EU exit and trade (strategy and negotiations) sub committee decided yesterday (see 9.22am), it is worth recalling that in September Barnier explicitly ruled out linking an agreement on what the UK would pay the EU to an understanding about a future trade deal. Barnier said:
Being very frank, I see no logical and coherent link between a discussion we will have as soon as possible about the future … and a discussion about the separation issues and commitments entered into in the past.
Barnier, of course, may in due course have to eat his words - an experience already familiar to British Brexit negotiators.
UK should become like low-tax, deregulated Singapore after Brexit, says Paterson
Yesterday Michel Barnier, the EU’s chief Brexit negotiator, suggested that EU national parliaments will refuse to ratify a UK-EU trade deal if the UK plans to diverge too much from the European regulatory model.
In an article in today’s Daily Telegraph (paywall) Owen Paterson, the Conservative former environment secretary, says this sort of divergence is exactly what the UK needs. The UK should embrace the low-tax, deregulated Singapore model, he says. Here’s an extract.
If we are to thrive, our post-Brexit model should exactly be Singapore, a tiny country devoid of natural resources but with a booming economy and an average life expectancy of 85. In 1980, Britons were 20 per cent richer than Singaporeans on average; today they are twice as rich as us.
My proposition is simple. There is not much point leaving the EU and its bureaucratic jungle of regulations, only to run our economy on precisely the same lines as before. Regardless of whether it smooths the path to a deal with Barnier, what is the point of Brexit (at least economically) if we shackle ourselves to high-tax, high-spend policies endemic in the EU?
In France, Sweden and Denmark, the state spends more than 50 per cent of GDP, with corresponding high levels of personal and business taxation. We are in better shape – but not much. Our government spends about 42 per cent of GDP and our tax burden is firmly in the middle of the EU pack.
There is another way – set out by Economists for Free Trade, chaired by Patrick Minford ... Minford and his team have tweaked the Treasury forecasting model to reflect the reality of trade flows and come up with a far more optimistic outlook for Britain. They predict a surge in UK growth through the 2020s – assuming a clean Brexit in which we cut ourselves free of EU regulations.
Here are the quotes from the Times from Iain Duncan Smith, the Conservative former work and pensions secretary and former party leader, and from Jacob Rees-Mogg, the backbencher, on why Theresa May should not offer more money to the EU now.
Duncan Smith said:
When you look at what is going on in Europe the idea that out of that chaotic situation can come any sort of understanding is clearly not right, so we will have to sit tight.
And Rees-Mogg said:
Approving a higher divorce bill at this stage would be foolish . . . As for Germany, its domestic political concerns make it less likely that it would want to risk the damage that could be done to its industry from the UK imposing tariffs on its exports.
But on the Today programme this morning a German minister warned Tory Brexiters not to try to take advantage of the political turmoil in his country, where coalition talks have collapsed without agreement, to drive a harder bargain on the financial settlement. Christian Schmidt, the food and agriculture minister, dismissed suggestions that Angela Merkel needed a deal more than ever to reassure German voters they would not be left to pick up the costs if the UK left the EU without settling its “divorce bill”. He told the programme:
My suggestion is just to think which kind of disaster this [a no deal Brexit] would be for the United Kingdom’s economy. This is not a game, winner and loser. This is a responsibility.
We see it in the 27 European member states. I think we see that there is a lot of responsibility also to the UK.
Former Brexit minister urges May to abandon talks with EU and prepare for no deal
The UK has shifted on the Brexit bill. Late yesterday afternoon the key cabinet sub committee which is in the lead on Brexit negotiation strategy agreed that the government will increase its financial offer to the EU - meaning that roughly £40bn will be on the table, although that sum was not explicitly discussed. But the offer is conditional both on the EU agreeing to open trade talks and, it seems, on the nature of the final offer. After the meeting a Downing Street source said:
It remains our position that nothing’s agreed until everything’s agreed in negotiations with the EU. As the prime minister said this morning, the UK and the EU should step forward together.
My colleague Anushka Asthana explains all in her overnight Guardian story here.
But some Tories are opposed to this strategy. The Times is splashing (paywall) on Theresa May being urged (by Iain Duncan Smith and Jacob Rees-Mogg, primarily) to hold off on offering the EU more while Germany is in crisis.
THE TIMES: May told to exploit Merkel crisis to reduce Brexit bill #tomorrowspaperstoday pic.twitter.com/PRfAplLEZq
— Neil Henderson (@hendopolis) November 20, 2017
And, at a conference today, the former Brexit minister David Jones will go further, saying that if the EU refuse to talk trade without further concessions, the UK should just walk away and prepare for a no deal Brexit. According to extracts released overnight, he will say:
At the December [European] council, the prime minister should insist that the EU now agree to begin trade talks without further delay. The UK has shown outstanding patience and goodwill since serving the article 50 notice. It is high time the EU stopped its prevarication.
If the prime minister does not receive confirmation that the EU will now start talking seriously about the future relationship, we should tell them we are suspending negotiations until they are ready to do so. There is nothing to be gained by continuing to flog a dead horse.
We should also be making serious preparations for life outside the EU by investing in the personnel, infrastructure and IT needed to commence trading with the EU on World Trade Organisation terms. Putting those arrangements in place will have the doubly beneficial effect of providing reassurance to business and signalling to the EU that we are not disposed to be strung along.
David Davis, the Brexit secretary, is giving a speech at the same conference later, and Boris Johnson, the foreign secretary, is taking questions in the Commons, so we will find out what the key cabinet Brexiters are saying on this key issue.
And then we have got eight hours of debate on the EU withdrawal bill. The debate will focus on an arcane but significant issue (the EU charter of fundamental rights), and for the first time in the bill’s committee stage the government is at serious risk of defeat - if it doesn’t offer concessions first.
Here is the agenda for the day.
9.30am: Brandon Lewis, the immigration minister, gives evidence to the Commons home affairs committee.
9.45am: The European Medicines Agency holds a briefing on its relocation from London to Amsterdam. (Politico Europe has a good “five takeaways” from the EU voting yesterday on where the EMA and the European banking authority will go when they leave London.)
10am: Katherine Bennett, the Airbus UK senior vice president, gives evidence to the Commons business committee.
10am: Alison Saunders, the director of public prosecutions, gives evidence to the Commons justice committee.
11.15am: David Davis, the Brexit secretary, gives a speech to a ‘Deal or No Deal: What are the Options?’ conference organised by the European Conservatives and Reformists group of MEPs. Other speakers include Greg Hands, the international trade minister at 10.10am and David Jones, the former Brexit minister, at 12.30pm.
11.30am: Boris Johnson, the foreign secretary, takes questions in the Commons.
Around 12.30pm: MPs begin day three of the committee stage debate on the EU withdrawal bill. The key battle will be over an amendment tabled by Dominic Grieve, the Conservative former attorney general, saying the EU charter of fundamental rights should be incorporated into UK law after Brexit. Labour will vote with Grieve if it gets pushed to a division. The various votes will start at around 8.30pm, although it may go later if there is a Commons statement.
As usual, I will be covering breaking political news as it happens, as well as bringing you the best reaction, comment and analysis from the web.
You can read all today’s Guardian politics stories here.
Here is the Politico Europe round-up of this morning’s political news from Jack Blanchard’s Playbook. And here is the PoliticsHome list of today’ top 10 must reads.
If you want to follow me or contact me on Twitter, I’m on @AndrewSparrow.
I try to monitor the comments BTL but normally I find it impossible to read them all. If you have a direct question, do include “Andrew” in it somewhere and I’m more likely to find it. I do try to answer direct questions, although sometimes I miss them or don’t have time.
If you want to attract my attention quickly, it is probably better to use Twitter.
Updated
