Afternoon summary
- Ben Wallace, the security minister, faced criticism from MPs on all sides of the Commons as he sought to downplay the significance of the government’s decision to accept the death penalty as an option for two jihadists facing trial in the US. Answering a Commons urgent question, Wallace effectively confirmed that the men, Alexanda Kotey and El Shafee Elsheikh, have been stripped of British citizenship. He said the decision not to seek a no death penalty assurance from the American authorities as a condition for supporting their prosecution on American soil, announced in a letter leaked to the Daily Telegraph, did not mean the UK was abandoning its long-standing opposition to the death penalty. He said the men were not under British control and that the letter was about the UK agreeing to supply intelligence to support the prosecution, not about Britain agreeing to extradite the men. He also said Theresa May supported the policy - correcting the impression left by a lobby briefing earlier that implied she didn’t. (See 11.54am.) But Wallace was unable to say why the government was not seeking a no death penalty assurance, or when it last waived this requirement. Diane Abbott, the shadow home secretary, said the government’s stance was “abhorrent and shameful”. (See 3.52pm.)
- Lord Heseltine, the Conservative former deputy prime minister and pro-European, has called for a second referendum on Brexit, calling the policy “a disaster”. Speaking in a Lords debate he said:
The right solution is to ask the second question about Brexit and see if there is a way to re-visit the fundamentals ...
Brexit is a disaster. There is no compromise with the Brexiteers. There never has been. There never will be. For my money here we stand and fight.
That’s all from me for today.
Thanks for the comments.
Updated
This is from the Yorkshire Post’s Arj Singh.
SCOOP I understand Chris Grayling was caught up in train delays as the Cabinet visited the North of England.https://t.co/zJofJImTec
— Arj Singh (@singharj) July 23, 2018
In his UQ on the Islamic State pair facing trial in the US, Ben Wallace, the security minister, said the British could be seen as “hypocrites” if they objected to the men facing the death penalty in the US. He explained:
I also am aware as an ex-soldier that all states including states that oppose the death penalty use lethal force when it has to do so to keep itself secure.
We risk being seen as hypocrites if we say on the one hand we will not ever make an exception for assurances but on the other hand we will use lethal force in battlefields to kill people without due process.
Margaret Hodge has posted on Twitter a copy of the letter she received from Labour HQ saying she was subject to a disciplinary inquiry for calling Jeremy Corbyn “antisemitic” last week, and a copy of the reply sent by her lawyers saying the procedure was unfair. There is a thread with all the paperwork, starting here.
Here is the letter I received from the Labour Party and the letter my lawyers have sent in reply. 1/7 pic.twitter.com/VwXRU93SBa
— Margaret Hodge (@margarethodge) July 23, 2018
This is from France Crook, the chief executive of the Howard League for Penal Reform, on the Javid no death penalty assurance decision.
I have written an open letter to @sajidjavid pic.twitter.com/FUVciXUy8I
— Frances Crook (@francescrook) July 23, 2018
In the Commons the pairing UQ is still going on. Labour’s Stella Creasy asked David Lidington to say whether or not, as reported, Julian Smith, the Conservative chief whip, asked other MPs to break pairs on Tuesday last week. If he did, it wasn’t a mistake, but a policy, she said.
Lidington said no other pairs were broken.
That doesn’t answer the question. The other MPs allegedly asked by Smith to break a pair reportedly ignored his request, in some or all cases having been given contrary advice by another whip.
In the Lords peers have also been been talking about the Sajid Javid decision to accept the death penalty as an option for the two jihadists facing trial in the US. Lord Tebbit, the former Conservative party chairman who was badly injured in the 1984 Brighton bomb, said he backed Javid’s decision. He said he was glad Javid had “given the nod to the American authorities to prosecute some particularly vile terrorists and leave them to face the penalty laid down by the democratic country of the United States of America”.
As a victim of terrorism myself I am always a supporter of the victims, not of the terrorists.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon, who was replying on behalf of the government, said the government “stood resolute and committed to the principle” of opposing the death penalty.
Lidington is replying to Carmichael.
He says Brandon Lewis is a minister in his team, so it is appropriate for Lidington to be replying, he says.
He says Lewis was not told he was paired with Swinson.
He says asking Lewis to vote was a mistake.
Every other pair that night was honoured, he says.
He says the PM and the leader of the Commons were not consulted.
Carmichael says Julian Smith should be replying to this UQ. There are serious questions outstanding about what happened last week, and he says Smith is the only person who can resolve them.
He says initially he was quite relaxed when he found out that Brandon Lewis had voted last week. He says he knows mistakes happen. But when he found out it was the chief whip’s decision, he got worried. He says Julian Smith’s claim he did not now this was a pregnancy pair neither explains or excuses what was an act of bad faith. A pair is a pair, he says.
He asks when the decision was taken to cancel the Lewis/Swinson pair. When were the whips offices told? Did Lewis know he was paired with Swinson? When was the PM told pairing arrangements would be broken? Was the PM told about Smith cancelling the pair before she told MPs it was an honest mistake? When Theresa May said it was a mistake, was that because a pair was broken, or because it was a pregnancy pair? If the latter, does that mean the government now endorses breaking other pairs.
Urgent question on pairing
Alistair Carmichael, the Lib Dem chief whip, is now asking an urgent question about pairing. He tabled his question to the chief whip, but David Lidington, the Cabinet Office minister, is replying.
Lidington starts by restating the government’s apology for the pair being broken last week. He says Julian Smith, the Conservative chief whip, and Brandon Lewis, the Conservative chair who broke a pair with Jo Swinson in two very tight votes last Tuesday, have apologised. He says Carmichael accepted those apologies.
He says almost 2,000 pairs have been agreed since the general election. He says the government’s record on keeping pairs is better than the record of some other parties.
He says MPs will get the chance to debate a plan to introduce proxy voting in September.
Updated
Wallace says the two individuals are not under UK control. This case is all about a US request for evidence about them.
This is from Yvette Cooper, the Labour chair of the Commons home affairs committee.
UK govt; “it is the long standing policy of the UK to oppose the death penalty in ALL circumstances AS A MATTER OF PRINCIPLE.” How can it be a principle if Home Sec has just ripped it up in practice? How can it be all circumstances if it’s not applied in these circumstances?
— Yvette Cooper (@YvetteCooperMP) July 23, 2018
The DUP’s Sammy Wilson says it would be a betrayal of the national interest if the UK did not supply evidence to the US to help bring these men to court.
Labour’s Steve McCabe asks for an assurance that evidence obtained by torture will not be used against the two jihadists.
Wallace says the UK will not be supplying evidence to the US that was obtained as a result of torture.
Wallace says the government is opposed to Guantanamo Bay because it sets outside the US justice system. He says the decisions taken in this case are different.
As the Telegraph’s Steven Swinford reports, Downing Street is also now saying Theresa May supports the decision.
No 10 says that 'the Prime Minister was aware of these plans and supports the way that this has been handled'
— Steven Swinford (@Steven_Swinford) July 23, 2018
Tom Tugendhat, the Conservative chair of the Commons foreign affairs committee, says the two men should have been charged with betrayal.
Labour’s Stella Creasy asks if the government will publish its legal advice on this? And she ask if the prime minister agrees with the decision.
Wallace says the government does not publish its legal advice. He says the prime minister was made aware of the decision and “agrees” with it.
- Wallace says Theresa May “agrees” with the decision. Earlier Downing Street refused to say this directly. (See 11.54am.)
Ministers worried no death penalty assurance might 'get in the way' of case going to trial, MPs told
Sir Ed Davey, the Lib Dem MP, asks why the government did not ask for a no death penalty assurance in this case.
Wallace says the government is interested in seeking justice. Where it feels a no death penalty assurance might “get in the way”, then there is a case for not asking for one.
- Wallace says government was worried a no death penalty assurance might “get in the way” of the case going to trial.
Updated
Dominic Grieve, the Conservative former attorney general, says he can understand the decision not to seek the return of these men to the UK. But he says facilitating their going to the US without a no death penalty assurance is a major new departure. Why did the government not seek a no death penalty assurance?
Wallace says ensuring a trial went ahead was important for public safety. And he suggest not demanding a no death penalty assurance might have increased the chance of a trial taking place.
Hilary Benn, the Labour MP, says the Javid letter said the government was not going to seek a no death penalty assurance. It was not just a matter of those assurances not being offered. He says the UK has to show it is better than the terrorists.
Wallace says he will not take lectures from someone who was in a government that was involved in rendition. He says he cannot talk about the case.
But he says it was the judgement of ministers that they would not seek assurances in this matter.
Wallace effectively confirms Kotey and Elsheikh have been stripped of British citizenship
Wallace is responding to Abbott.
He says he agrees with some of what she says.
But this is not an extradition case, he says. He says this was a letter about sharing intelligence.
And he says the men are not British citizens.
We’re not talking about UK citizens.
- Ben Wallace, the security minister, effectively confirms that Alexanda Kotey and El Shafee Elsheikh have been stripped of British citizenship.
He says Sajid Javid did not come to the Commons to announce a change of policy because policy has not changed.
Updated
Labour says government’s decision to abandon its opposition to death penalty is 'abhorrent and shameful'
Abbot says MPs are united in condemning terrorism and the work of Islamic State.
One of the UK’s strengths as a country is it willingness to stand up for human rights.
So Wallace will understand why people are concerned that the government is abandoning its opposition to the death penalty.
But Abbott says the UK cannot be a “little bit” in favour of the death penalty. Either you oppose it or you don’t, she says.
She says the UK has always sought assurances that those extradited will not face the death penalty.
She says Sajid Javid told Jeff Sessions, the US attorney general, he was not speaking death penalty assurance in this case.
Why was parliament not told?
What was the legal advice?
What steps were taken to ensure that torture was not involved in this case?
Abbott says the mother of the of these men’s vicitms said she was opposed to the death penalty in this case.
She says the government’s decision to abandon its opposition to the death penalty is “abhorrent and shameful”.
This decision to abandon our principled opposition to the death penalty is both abhorrent and shameful, and I call on ministers even at this late stage to reverse this decision.
- Abbott says government’s decision to abandon its opposition to the death penalty is “abhorrent and shameful”.
Updated
Diane Abbott, the shadow home secretary, asks for a statement on the government’s policy on rendition in cases where suspects may face capital punishment.
Ben Wallace, the security minister, says in this case the government took the rare decision not to demand assurances that Alexanda Kotey and El Shafee Elsheikh would not face the death penalty if tried in the US.
He says the case is still active and there is a limit to what he can say.
But he says the government’s long-standing objection to the death penalty remains.
He says it is also the government’s case that the Guantanamo Bay prison camp should close.
Urgent question on Sajid Javid's decision to allow death penalty as an option for jihadists facing trial in US
We are about to get a Commons urgent question on Sajid Javid’s decision to allow the death penalty as an option for two jihadists facing trial in US. They were British, but it is understood thy have been stripped of British citizenship and are therefore stateless.
Here is our story about this.
Theresa May's Q&A - Snap verdict
Theresa May’s Q&A - Snap verdict: Contrary to some glib claims, Theresa May is not a hopeless politician. She is conscientious when it comes to mastering a brief, she has obvious and remarkable survival skills, she has a capacity for being stubborn, she avoids making enemies and he has managed to hold together a fissiparous party better than anyone else could. And she is capable of taking bold decisions - although much more often than not, she doesn’t.
But, as a communicator, she is third-rate, or worse. Unremarkable, wooden, frankly boring. One journalist estimated this morning that this would be May’s first Q&A in front of a normal audience since the general election Question Time. There is a reason for that; she is not very good at this stuff, and her staff know it.
In normal times this would be a near-fatal limitation anyway. But it is a particular problem for May because she has to go out and persuade the public to back a Brexit plan whose popularity is tanking by the week. It would be a challenge even for a PM who was a maestro at this (Tony Blair or David Cameron at their peak). May doesn’t seem up to it.
But we all know that; we saw it during the election. As someone once said, nothing has changed.
Updated
Q: Are there any plans to reduce the cost of university education? Up here it is easy to get on a ferry and go to Holland for university.
May says the government is looking at this at the moment. Cutting the length of university courses from three years to two years might be an option, she says.
And that’s it.
Q: As a woman working in a male-dominate environment, what advice would you give?
May says be yourself and believe in yourself. She says she tells people they don’t have to do the job in the way men do it. She says it is great to see women in engineering jobs.
What I say to women in politics and business generally is, don’t feel you have to do a job in the way that the men do it. You’ve got skills, show your skills in your job in the way that you want to show those skills.
I think it is great to see women in engineering. It’s one of the areas of employment we haven’t managed to get as many women into in the past as I would like to see.
So, it’s good to see some female apprentices coming into engineering companies. Good on you.
Updated
Q: The cabinet discussed the MDP [moderning defence programme] last week. Can you tell us about it?
May says the work is still ongoing. Part of the work is about ensuring that the MoD gets good value for money.
The government has to look at where threats come from in the future.
This is from the Economist’s Adrian Wooldridge, who I presume is watching the May Q&A.
"Stanley Baldwin was mediocre on purpose and on principle" (Owen Harries). Would that the same could be said of Theresa May
— Adrian Wooldridge (@adwooldridge) July 23, 2018
Q: There is talk of government delivering on the Brexit people voted for. But how do you know what Brexit people voted for?
May says, if that is a question about a second referendum, she is opposed.
For some people immigration would have been an issue. For others it was the European court of justice, and for others it was money.
She says, underlying it all, she thinks the vote was about whether government is delivering for people.
She says she thinks the key things people wanted were an end to free movement, and end to the jurisdiction of the ECJ and an end to paying large sums of money to Brussels.
Q: Do you feel the balance in parliament gives too much influence to minority groups who could destabilise Brexit?
May says the Tories have a confidence and supply arrangement with the DUP, and they back the government on Brexit.
She says it is important for parliament to deliver what people want on Brexit.
Q: What plans are in place to protect investment in the UK after Brexit?
May says the government is taking a number of investment decisions that would be important anyway, but which will matter after Brexit. She cites as examples the East Coast mainline investment announced today.
She says the future after Brexit will be what we make of it. She says we can take those opportunities and make the best of them.
Q: The special relationship with the US does not seem that special any more. What is your comment?
May says President Trump said at his press conference in the UK that the relationship was at the highest level of special.
She says the relationship will remain special for many years.
Q: You have said free movement will end after March. Won’t that affect UK nationals?
May says free movement will end. At the moment the UK can set immigration rules for people from the rest of the world, but not for people from the EU. After Brexit that will change.
Q: How will we fare post-Brexit in relation to competitive tendering?
May says she thinks the UK will do “really well” after Brexit. The UK has got great skills. It has very good universities. It has great opportunities, and will be able to be more outward looking.
In general, I think the UK is going to do really well post-Brexit. I think there are huge opportunities for us. We are a great entrepreneurial, innovative, creative country, we’ve got huge skills here, our universities are fantastic.
I think we’ve got real opportunities post-Brexit and we can be much more outward-looking post-Brexit.
She says there is a bit of “interplay” [that seems to mean a row] with the EU over one tendering issue, Galileo. She says she hopes that gets resolved.
There’s a bit of interplay with the EU at the moment in one particular area, space and the Galileo project, about whether they will let us into that project.
We are still working with them on that. I would hope and I think that what we will see actually is a recognition from those who are looking to procure of the benefits of procurement here.
But she wants a good economic relationship with the EU, she says.
Updated
Q: You probably have the world’s most stressful job. How do you cope and how do you unwind?
May says she likes walking, and she likes cooking. That has a benefit; you get to eat it. She has over 150 cookbooks. And she likes NCIS, she says.
Q: Earlier in the year the BBC published report saying the north east would be worse affected by Brexit. (More on that here.) What can you do for the north east?
May says a trade deal would be particularly useful for the car industry in the north east.
Q: Have you started discussions on trade deals for after Brexit?
May says the UK has started early discussions. This is one of the things she spoke to President Trump about. The UK cannot sign deals until after the UK has left, but those deals will come into effect after the transition period.
She she has spoken to the Americans, the Australians are very interested, and the Canadians are too. “There is a lot of interest out there,” she says.
May says her modern industrial strategy encourages universities to work with industry. One challenge involves dealing with the problems of an ageing population.
Q: Will the UK still get the benefits of the projects the divorce bill money was set aside to fund?
May says the divorce bill is less than the EU originally wanted. Brexit will allow the government to save money, and some of that will go to the NHS, she says.
Q: If parliament does not back the deal, is it inevitable that there will be a no deal Brexit?
May says she is working to get a deal that parliament will support.
But she is preparing for the possibility of a no deal too.
Q: What confidence do you have that your plan will get accepted? It seems like having your cake and eat it.
May says a future partnership that is good for the UK will be good for the EU too. What she sees in the EU is people focusing their minds on the impact the future relationship will have on them.
She says she has had some constructive responses so far.
Theresa May has arrived.
She talks about bringing the cabinet up to Gateshead, and she says Brexit is one factor that affects jobs. She summarises what her Chequers plan involves. She says it will keep frictionless trade with the EU. That will protect jobs and livelihoods, but allow the UK to do good trade deals too.
She says she wants to deliver on the referendum, but protect jobs too.
She says this is an opportunity for her to take questions.
Theresa May's Q&A with factory workers
Theresa May is about to start her Q&A with factory workers. She is at the Reece Group in Newcastle, an engineering company.
There is a live feed at the top of the blog.
Jeremy Hunt, the new foreign secretary, says the only person rejoicing if the UK leaves the EU with no trade deal will be President Putin. He is almost certainly wrong; there are plenty of Brexiters who, though they would prefer the UK to leave the EU with a trade deal, are relatively relaxed about the UK having to trade on WTO terms instead and who would be rejoicing about what they call a “clean Brexit” actually taking place.
Excellent discussion with German Foreign Minister @HeikoMaas about the unintended geopolitical consequences of No Deal. Only person rejoicing would be Putin...
— Jeremy Hunt (@Jeremy_Hunt) July 23, 2018
For example, this is what the Conservative former cabinet minister Owen Paterson said on this subject in an interview yesterday.
Obviously the optimal arrangement would be to have a free trade deal something like Canada plus, that would be much the best, but we should be very clear now that if [Michel Barnier, the EU’s chief Brexit negotiator] is pushing for yet more concessions on Chequers, which for someone like me is wholly unacceptable anyway, we should be beginning to prepare for what are world trade terms ... I have yet to see the evidence that WTO is going to be a disaster as is forecast.
On this topic Jacob Rees-Mogg, the chair of the pro-Brexit European Research Group, told the BBC’s Westminster Hour last night that it was wrong to say ERG Tories did not want a deal. “I think most members of the European Research Group would like there to be a deal and were very happy with the level of compromise that came in the Mansion House speech,” he said. But he said they were not willing to accept the compromises implicit in the Chequers plan.
Lunchtime summary
- Downing Street has refused to say that Theresa May backs the decision to allow the death penalty as an option if the jihadists Alexanda Kotey and El Shafee Elsheikh are tried in the US. (See 11.54am.) Asked about this, the prime minister’s spokeswoman said:
The decision was taken by the home secretary and the former foreign secretary [Boris Johnson] and the PM was made aware of the decision. But, I would say, it’s everyone’s aim to make sure that these men face justice through a criminal prosecution.
We are continuing to engage with the US government on this issue. We want to make sure that they face justice in the most appropriate jurisdiction which maximises the chance of a successful prosecution.
- Britain’s foreign secretary, Jeremy Hunt, has warned there is a risk of the UK leaving the EU in March 2019 without a deal because of stalling by the bloc’s negotiators, and that British views of Europe would sour as a result. He has also said that the only person to welcome a no deal Brexit would be Vladimir Putin, the Russian president.
Excellent discussion with German Foreign Minister @HeikoMaas about the unintended geopolitical consequences of No Deal. Only person rejoicing would be Putin...
— Jeremy Hunt (@Jeremy_Hunt) July 23, 2018
- Theresa May has chaired a cabinet meeting in Gateshead. (See 12.39am.)
Sir Ed Davey, the Lib Dem home affairs spokesman, has accused Sajid Javid, the home secretary, of failing in his duty to uphold human rights. Commenting on the news that Javid has accepted that the jihadists Alexanda Kotey and El Shafee Elsheikh could be put on trial in the US even if they face the death penalty, Davey said:
The crimes committed by these terrorists are amongst the most heinous imaginable. Clearly these two individuals present a serious danger to the public and the argument that they should spend the rest of their lives in prison is overwhelming. However, the use of the death penalty - no matter the crimes involved - is wrong.
By refusing to stand up to Donald Trump’s administration on this issue, Sajid Javid has abdicated his responsibility to uphold fundamental human rights. He has undermined the UK’s efforts to end the use of the death penalty around the world.
We will only ever see an end to terrorism by sticking to our morals and principles. If the Conservative government once again dances to the tune of a dangerous US president it will do nothing but fan the flames of terror.
And Lord Blunkett, the Labour former home secretary, told the World at One that he thought Javid’s decision was wrong. Blunkett said:
Once you have made an exception, then where do you go? The home secretary making individual decisions on individual cases is a very, very bad principle.
Blunkett said he would prefer it if Kotey and Elsheikh were prosecuted in Britain.
Downing Street has just announced that Shailesh Vara has been made a minister of state at the Northern Ireland Office. Previously he was a more junior minister, a parliamentary under secretary, there.
These are from Diane Abbott, the shadow home secretary.
“Extradition is prohibited by statute if:
— Diane Abbott (@HackneyAbbott) July 23, 2018
the person could face the death penalty (unless the Secretary of State gets adequate written assurance that the death penalty will not be imposed or, if imposed, will not be carried out)”https://t.co/YStsmepVso
Sajid Javid has an important question to answer.
— Diane Abbott (@HackneyAbbott) July 23, 2018
Labour rebuts Hodge's claim it has watered down IHRA definition of antisemitism
On the Today programme this morning the Labour MP Margaret Hodge said she stood by her claim that Jeremy Corbyn was antisemitic. My colleague Sarah Marsh has written up her comments here.
The row about Corbyn’s stance on antisemitism is currently focused on Labour’s code of conduct on antisemitism. It has been criticised because, although it includes the internationally accepted International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism, it does not replicate in full a list of examples of antisemitism published by the IHRA alongside its definition.
Hodge said that it was Labour’s refusal to accept the IHRA definition, and its list of examples, in full that justified her calling Corbyn antisemitic. She told the programme:
You can carry on proclaiming you are not antisemitic, you can carry on saying it, but it’s by his actions that he has to be judged. And by refusing to adopt the definition in full of what antisemitism is he has put himself in a position that he is perceived by many to be antisemitic.
When it was put to her that Labour all the examples cited by IHRA are covered by its code, just not in the same list with the same bullet points, Hodge said she did not accept this. She explained:
The document sits as a whole. Let me give you some examples. Since the incident in the House of Commons last week I have had a spate of antisemitic and emails messages to me, although I think I have had more supportive messages than negative ones.
I’ve been called a Zionist bitch. I’ve been told that I’m under the orders of my paymaster in Israel. I’ve been called a supporter of the racist state of Israel. And I’ve been told that they should dress my as a Palestinian so that her own paymasters shoot the traitor. And the only connection between me and Israel is that I’m a Jew, and Jews live in Israel ...
All those would be allowed under this definition.
The four examples of antisemitism in the IHRA list that are not replicated in the bullet point list in the Labour code are: accusing Jewish people of being more loyal to Israel than their home country; claiming that Israel’s existence as a state is a racist endeavour; requiring higher standards of behaviour from Israel than other nations; and comparing contemporary Israeli policies to those of the Nazis.
But later on the Today programme the shadow solicitor general, Nick Thomas-Symonds, said that Hodge was wrong. He said the example of antisemitism cited by Hodge would be covered by Labour’s code.
He also explained why Labour had decided to draft its own set of rules, instead of just lifting the text of the IHRA definition and examples wholesale. He said:
The first point is I think we should be going further than the IHRA definition, frankly, and the language of the code is at times much stronger. Being stronger, and having things in here that are actually said to be wrong, rather than simply saying things like ‘things may serve as as an illustration’, I think is helpful. Secondly, we need to expand on a lot of the examples to ensure that we have a legally enforceable code so that we can enforce discipline as everyone wants to ...
We have to be taking the IHRA definition, which is adopted in full. We then have to have a workable way to take the examples forward, to ensure not only that they can be applied fairly in our own disciplinary processes, but people who are subject to disciplinary action always have the right to go to the courts as well. So we need to have a position where we can have a firm disciplinary procedure we can all rely on and it will stand up in court.
A recent briefing note prepared by Labour explained why the four IHRA examples not copied over into the Labour bullet point list are covered elsewhere in the Labour code. For reference, here is what it says on this in full.
The IHRA examples which are not reproduced in the bulleted section, are addressed in the guidelines. It is untrue and misleading to say they are rejected or omitted.
Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal is covered in paragraph 14 and the code plainly treats this as racist behaviour. It says: “It is also wrong to accuse Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations.” The code also goes further than the IHRA by saying that it is wrong to apply double standards by requiring more vociferous condemnation of Israeli state actions from Jewish people or organisations, than from others.
The code deals explicitly with the standard of behaviour expected of Israel in paragraph 13 where we say the conduct of Israel or any other state should be assessed against the “requirements of international law or the standard of behaviour expected of democratic states”. Those are universal standards. As we point out, there is debate about the exact content of those standards, but our guidelines very clearly do not allow discriminatory differences in standards to be applied. And an additional “double standards” point is included in paragraph 14.
The code is clear that any denial of Israel’s right to exist is a form of antisemitism and that we will not allow discriminatory double standards to be applied, which covers the point about claims that Israel’s existence is a racist endeavour. If such claims deny Jewish people their right to self-determination or hold Israel to different standards than other countries, this would breach the code of conduct.
Nazi comparison is dealt with in paragraph 16. It says “Chakrabarti recommended that Labour members should resist the use of Hitler, Nazi and Holocaust metaphors, distortions and comparisons in debates about Israel-Palestine in particular. In this sensitive area, such language carries a strong risk of being regarded as prejudicial or grossly detrimental to the party within clause 2.I.8.”
Ben Wallace, the security minister, will respond to the UQ on the death penalty. And David Lidington, the Cabinet Office minister, will respond to the UQ on pairing, Labour whips report.
Government confirm that @BWallaceMP will respond to @HackneyAbbott UQ and that @DLidington and NOT @JulianSmithUK will respond on pairing.
— Labour Whips (@labourwhips) July 23, 2018
There are two urgent questions today. Both could be very interesting.
Two urgent questions in the Commons today:
— UK House of Commons (@HouseofCommons) July 23, 2018
1. @HackneyAbbott - Government policy on rendition of UK citizens
2. @amcarmichaelMP - Pairing arrangements
No ministerial statements.
Here is the cabinet meeting in Gateshead. They are at the Sage. The view is superb (I know, because the Lib Dems once held a conference there), but it does not look particularly conducive to a cabinet meeting.
The modern tradition of holding regional cabinet meetings started with Gordon Brown, who did several a year. David Cameron was also maintained the practice. Theresa May has been less keen, and the last reference to one she held that I can find was when she took her cabinet to Cheshire in January 2017.
Cabinet ministers are perfectly capable of discussing regional policy quite sensibly in Downing Street. But dragging everyone out of London means that cabinet can be used as a springboard for a whole series of associated ministerial regional visits. These may conceivably have have a positive influence on policy making (by forcing ministers to listen to non-London views for an hour or so), but their main function is a presentational one; they tend to get good coverage in regional media.
No statements today in the @HouseofCommons
— Labour Whips (@labourwhips) July 23, 2018
We have not heard about UQ’s yet.
At the Number 10 lobby briefing this morning, at almost exactly the same time as Jeremy Hunt, the new foreign secretary, was telling reporters in Germany there was “a very real threat of a Brexit no deal by accident”, the prime minister’s spokeswoman told journalists: “We are confident we will get a deal.”
The two statements might not be logically inconsistent, but they are certainly tonally inconsistent.
Hunt claims there is 'very real threat' of no deal Brexit
The new foreign secretary, Jeremy Hunt, has warned that there is now a high risk of Britain leaving the European Union without a deal “by accident” in March next year, and that British views of Europe would sour as a result.
Speaking in Berlin on his first trip since taking up the role earlier this month, Jeremy Hunt told his German counterpart Heiko Maas that “there is now a very real threat of a Brexit no deal by accident, and this is because many people in the EU are thinking that they just have to wait long enough and Britain will blink.”
In comments very much directed over the head of Germany’s Social Democrat foreign minister at Brussels, Hunt said:
Without a real change in approach from the EU negotiators we do now face a real risk of a no deal by accident, and that would be incredibly challenging economically. Britain would find that challenging, but in the end we would find a way not just to survive but to thrive economically. But my real concern is that it would change British public attitudes to Europe for a generation.
Sinn Fein leader Mary Lou McDonald and deputy leader Michelle O’Neill are to meet Brexit negotiator Michel Barnier in Brussels this afternoon.
They will tell Barnier that Sinn Fein, whose MPs represent all border counties in the region, that they support the EU’s backstop position on the Irish border and agree that unless Theresa May’s government deliver a legally binding text, the withdrawal agreement should not be signed.
Sinn Fein came in from sharp criticism from politicians in Dublin last week for not taking its seats in Westminster and representing the nationalist and other constituents who do not support Brexit in the customs bill and trade bill votes, both carried by a narrow margin by the government.
May met representatives of all parties including Sinn Fein’s MP for Fermanagh when she visited Belleek pottery factory in the border village last week.
Her visit was hosted by Arlene Foster, the leader of the DUP and was tightly controlled, did not include any walkabouts or any walk across the border.
In Belfast the following day, her visit was also tightly controlled. Business leaders invited to a small gathering to hear her speak did not include key organisations including the CBI Northern Ireland or the Freight Transport Association, both of whom have voiced concerns about Brexit.
She was put on the spot about the DUP’s position on Brexit by teenagers at a second meeting on Friday morning and told the DUP did not represent the entire community.
Theresa May put on spot over partnership with DUP by teenagers in Belfast
— lisa o'carroll (@lisaocarroll) July 20, 2018
"What we've put forward in terms of Brexit is something that works for
all communities in Northern Ireland."
Nevan Mawhinney then replied: "But the DUP aren't, the DUP aren't
working for all communities. pic.twitter.com/LLCE4V8Two
This is from my colleague Pippa Crerar.
Government sources later indicated that key point is WHERE in the US the Isis terrorists are sent. In other words, if it’s a state that has death penalty, we won’t be so keen to share intelligence.
— Pippa Crerar (@PippaCrerar) July 23, 2018
No 10 refuses to say May supports Javid on allowing death penalty option for British jihadists in US
I’m just back from the Number 10 lobby briefing. Most of the questions were about the Telegraph splash, and Sajid Javid’s decision to effectively approve a death penalty option for British jihadists facing trial in the US, and the Downing Street line was unusually ambivalent. Here are the main points.
- Number 10 said the decision to let the two jihadists face trial in the US without the usual assurance that the death penalty would not be applied was taken by Javid and Boris Johnson, the then foreign secretary. The prime minister was aware of the decision, her spokeswoman said. But the spokeswoman repeatedly refused to say that Theresa May “supported” the decision. Instead she kept insisting that he government was agreed that the men need to face justice (although she was unable to explain why facing justice required a death penalty option.)
- Downing Street stressed that the final decision about what will happen to the men, or where they will face trial, has not yet been taken.
- Number 10 insisted that the UK remained opposed to the death penalty “in all circumstances as a matter of principle”. But the spokeswoman was unable to explain who that squared with the stance adopted by Javid in the leaked letter.
Boris Johnson has used his new Telegraph column to accuse Sadiq Khan, the Labour mayor of London, of failing to tackle knife crime in London. Johnson, the Conservative former London mayor and former foreign secretary, said:
It is tragic that so many young lives are again being lost on the pavements of our capital. But for my money there is a further outrage - and that is the abject failure of the mayor of London either to grip the problem, or even to take responsibility.
He [Khan] blames everyone but himself, when it is his paramount duty to keep Londoners safe.
A spokesman for Khan said:
This is desperate nonsense from the man who was in the government that slashed stop and search and funding for our police and preventive services and saw violent crime rise across the country.
I’m off to the lobby briefing now. I will post again after 11.30am.
For some reason the timestamps are going a little haywire today. If I go back into a post to correct a typo or something, it creates a new timestamp. That’s why it looks as if posts are in the wrong order. But they’re not.
I’ve asked someone to try to get this fixed.
Labour accuses Javid of abandoning UK's opposition to death penalty
Labour has accused Sajid Javid of encouraging “grave human rights abuse”. Here is the statement the party has put out from Shami Chakrabarti, the shadow attorney general, in response to today’s Telegraph revelations. She says:
Sajid Javid appears to have secretly and unilaterally abandoned Britain’s opposition to the death penalty. By doing so he is not just playing with the lives of these particular terrorists but those of other Britons – including potentially innocent ones – all over the world.
Just as we should be persuading countries like the US and Iran to drop the death penalty, Sajid Javid appears to be encouraging this grave human rights abuse.
Updated
The shadow cabinet are having an “away-day” today. (“Away” from the House of Commons - they haven’t gone far, and they’re in London.) According to the BBC’s Norman Smith, anti-Brexit protesters are there to greet them.
Anti Brexit demo outside Labour shadow Cabinet meeting. “Where’s Jeremy Corbyn” chants pic.twitter.com/zA5opIziPT
— norman smith (@BBCNormanS) July 23, 2018
According to the Telegraph’s Steven Swinford, some ministers are unhappy about Sajid Javid’s stance on the death penalty for the British militants facing trial in the US. (See 9.41am.)
Sajid Javid facing big backlash from Tory ministers this morning over decision to abandon opposition to death penalty in case of 'Beatles'. One minister: 'This completely cuts across 25 years of Government policy, it should be rescinded today. It's immoral and unacceptable'
— Steven Swinford (@Steven_Swinford) July 23, 2018
Updated
Javid accused of 'secretly' changing UK policy on death penalty for Britons tried abroad
The American journalist James Foley was one of the captives killed by the Islamic State gang that Alexanda Kotey and El Shafee Elsheikh are accused of belonging to. (See 9.41am.) On the Today programme Foley’s mother, Diane, said she was opposed to the death penalty. She said:
I am very against that. I think that would just make them martyrs in their twisted ideology. I would like them held accountable by being sent to prison for the rest of their lives.
Lord Carlile, the former Lib Dem MP and former independent reviewer of terrorist legislation, told the same programme that Javid’s letter to the US attorney general was “extraordinary”. He explained:
It is a dramatic change of policy by a minister, secretly, without any discussion in parliament. It flies in the face of what has been said repeatedly and recently by the Home Office - including when Theresa May was home secretary - and very recently by the highly-respected security Minister Ben Wallace.
Britain has always said that it will pass information and intelligence, in appropriate cases, provided there is no death penalty. That is a decades-old policy and it is not for the home secretary to change that policy.
Here is the Labour MP David Lammy on the Telegraph story.
We have had cross-party consensus against the death penalty for more than 50 years in this country. It’s alarming that Home Sec @sajidjavid is now making exceptions, copied directly from the Trump playbook.https://t.co/orcKLcwbgt
— David Lammy (@DavidLammy) July 23, 2018
Javid says British militants can be tried in US without usual 'no death penalty' assurance
Sajid Javid has not been afraid to challenge convention since he became home secretary. And today, in a significant splash (paywall), the Daily Telegraph has fresh evidence of that, with a story quoting from a letter that Javid wrote to Jeff Sessions, the US attorney general, saying the UK would consent to two British jihadists being sent to the US to face trial without the American authorities having to give the usual assurances that they will not face the death penalty.
As the Press Association reports, Alexanda Kotey and El Shafee Elsheikh, are accused of have been members of the brutal four-man “Beatles” cell of Islamic State executioners in Syria and Iraq, responsible for killing a series of high-profile Western captives. The pair, who are understood to have been stripped of their British citizenship, were captured in January, sparking a row over whether they should be returned to the UK for trial or face justice in another jurisdiction.
In his letter Javid wrote:
All assistance and material will be provided on the condition that it may only be used for the purpose sought in that request, namely a federal criminal investigation or prosecution.
Furthermore, I am of the view that there are strong reasons for not requiring a death penalty assurance in this specific case, so no such assurances will be sought ...
As you are aware, it is the long-held position of the UK to seek death penalty assurances, and our decision in this case does not reflect a change in our policy on assistance in US death penalty cases generally, nor the UK g withoutovernment’s stance on the global abolition of the death penalty.
In the letter Javid also says he is not asking for Kotey and Elsheikh to face trial in the UK because the chances of a successful prosecution are better in the US. Javid said:
I do understand your frustration on this subject and in order to improve the chances of prosecution in other cases in the future we in the UK are introducing new legislation to improve the range of offences on the statute book going forward to deal with the scourge of foreign fighters.
Ensuring foreign fighters face justice raises a real challenge for all our jurisdictions, however in this instance we believe that a successful federal prosecution in the US is more likely to be possible because of differences in your statute book and the restrictions on challenges to the route by which defendants appear in US courts. The US currently has additional charges for terrorism offences which are not available under UK criminal law, and those offences carry long sentences.
This is highly likely to be raised in the House of Commons later today. The Home Office would not comment on the leaked letter, but a spokesperson said:
We continue to engage with the US Government on this issue, as we do on a range of national security issues and in the context of our joint determination to tackle international terrorism and combat violent extremism. The UK government’s position on Guantanamo Bay is that the detention facility should close.
Telegraph tomorrow:
— Ben Riley-Smith (@benrileysmith) July 22, 2018
Javid tells US: We won’t block death penalty for Isil ‘Beatles’ pic.twitter.com/Gwer1PeLot
Here is the agenda for the day.
11am: Theresa May chairs a cabinet meeting in Gateshead.
11am: Downing Street lobby briefing.
1pm: May talks to workers at a local business.
3pm: Dominic Raab, the new Brexit secretary, visits a wool mill in Yorkshire.
6pm: Labour MPs will push for a vote at the parliamentary Labour party meeting for the PLP to adopt the full International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, with all its examples, defying Jeremy Corbyn who favours the party’s alternative version. Toby Helm previewed this in the Observer yesterday.
At some point today Javid, the home secretary, will publish a written ministerial statement about the settlement scheme for EU nationals staying in the UK after Brexit.
As usual, I will also be covering breaking political news as it happens, as well as bringing you the best reaction, comment and analysis from the web. I plan to post a summary at lunchtime and another in the afternoon.
You can read all today’s Guardian politics stories here.
Here is the Politico Europe round-up of this morning’s political news from Jack Blanchard. And here is the PoliticsHome list of today’s top 10 must-reads.
If you want to follow me or contact me on Twitter, I’m on @AndrewSparrow.
I try to monitor the comments BTL but normally I find it impossible to read them all. If you have a direct question, do include “Andrew” in it somewhere and I’m more likely to find it. I do try to answer direct questions, although sometimes I miss them or don’t have time.
If you want to attract my attention quickly, it is probably better to use Twitter.
Updated
.png?w=600)
