Early evening summary
- Greg Clarke, the business secretary, has told MPs that workers’ rights will be protected when the UK leaves the EU. Speaking tonight in the first of a series of general Brexit debates the government is holding, he said:
No one listening to this debate should think that we have any intention of eroding the rights that we enjoy in this country through our process of leaving the European Union, because in fact the opposite is true. We will be using the legislation before this House to entrench all existing workers’ rights in British law, whatever the future relationship that the UK has with the EU.
He said that when the government passed its great repeal bill, incorporating EU laws into UK domestic legislation, all workers’ rights in EU law would be carried over. And he denied claims that the government might include a sunset clause, time-limiting these protections. “There is no intention to have a sunset clause,” he said.
- Nicola Sturgeon, Scotland’s first minister, has urged the UK government to further slow the pace of deficit reduction in the forthcoming autumn statement. In a lecture at Sheffield University she suggested austerity and lack of hope helped to explain why people voted for Brexit. She said:
UK economic policy, arguably over several decades but particularly in recent years, has not given enough people enough grounds for hope. The current government has already abandoned the deficit reduction targets it was elected on in 2015 - just as the previous government abandoned, in 2012, the deficit reduction targets it set itself in 2010. There’s a good reason for that. The severity of government cuts has permanently reduced the productive capacity of the economy. As a result, cuts hindered, rather than helped, attempts to reduce government debt.
Austerity is a policy which has failed, categorically and comprehensively, on its own terms. It has also imposed needless hardship on individuals and families across the UK. Austerity hasn’t just harmed our economy; it has damaged our society.
That’s all from me for tonight.
Thanks for the comments.
Clark says the Conservative party is the true workers’ party, dedicated to protecting workers’ rights.
Clark says the government recognises it has more to do to tackle the gender pay gap.
Clark says the government will not water down the TUPE rules - Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) regulations, which ensure that workers do not lose rights if their jobs are privatised, or transferred to another employer.
MPs debate Brexit and workers' rights
MPs are now debating Brexit and workers’ rights. This is the first of several debates the government is holding on Brexit. But it is just a general debate, and there will not be a vote at the end, and so the debate itself will count for little.
Greg Clark, the business secretary, opened the debate. In his opening remarks he said the government would protect workers’ rights when it repatriated employment legislation to the UK.
Business Secretary Greg Clark vows to protect workers’ rights after Brexit https://t.co/ozxsfmBocx
— nicholas cecil (@nicholascecil) November 7, 2016
Business secretary Greg Clark: "all of the workers' rights that are enjoyed in the EU," will be imported into UK law in Great Repeal bill.
— Heather Stewart (@GuardianHeather) November 7, 2016
David Davis's statement on article 50 court ruling - Summary
Here are the main points from David Davis’s statement on the article 50 court ruling.
- Davis accused MPs demanding parliamentary control of the article 50 process of wanting to “wreck the [Brexit] negotiation”. (See 4.33pm.)
- He said the government might have to wait until January for the result of the supreme court appeal. When Labour’s Angela Smith said it might take this long, he replied:
Yes, she is right in one respect, that it may come as late as early January. The expectation is that the case will be heard in the early part of December, and it will take two or three weeks I expect to get the judgment written up. But I think it is the proper role of government to wait and respect the judgment we get from the supreme court, full stop.
- Davis rejected calls from several MPs for the government to hold a vote on triggering article 50 before the supreme court judgment. It was right to wait until the supreme court issued its decision, he said. But he told the Conservative Nicky Morgan that, although he could not agree to her proposal for an early vote on a one-line article 50 bill, he was “very tempted” by the idea. And when Peter Bone, a Conservative, said the government should just hold a vote on a resolution backing triggering article 50, Davis said that the government was not proposing that, but that the Commons itself could decide to have a vote. He also suggested the government wanted to clarify the law on prerogative powers generally, not least because they cover decisions like going to war.
- He said that, although the high court ruling implied that the government had to pass primary legislation to be allowed to trigger article 50, the supreme court ruling could say something different. He was responding to questions about whether parliament would have to pass a bill to allow the government to trigger article 50, or whether just passing a resolution (a quicker, easier process) would be enough if the government loses its appeal to the supreme court.
- He defended the independence of the judiciary, although he refused to condemn those newspapers that attacked the high court judges for their article 50 ruling. He said:
There are a number of pillars of our democracy, one of them is the independence of the judiciary which we have maintained for centuries, and one of the others is the freedom of the press which we are still maintaining after centuries.
- He said some of the online trolls who have attacked Gina Miller, the woman who brought the article 50 case, should be prosecuted. He said:
Let me comment on the issue of Gina Miller. I’ve said with respect to that that I deplored - I can’t find words strong enough frankly to say how much I detest the attacks on her.
And frankly from what I’ve heard about them - I haven’t seen them myself directly but from what I’ve heard about them - they sound to me to be effectively criminal attacks, because incitement of violence, threats of violence, racial abuse, are all crimes.
- He refused to endorse communities secretary Sajid Javid’s claim that the high court ruling was an “attempt to frustrate the will of the British people”.
- He suggested that the proposed march on the supreme court, to be led by Nigel Farage, would be pointless. He said:
The right to demonstrate is another of our freedoms but I’d say this - one of the great things about our supreme court, indeed all our courts, is it wouldn’t matter how many people march, it wouldn’t move their judgments by one comma.
And that’s what we should be proud of.
- He said the government would announce in due course whether it intended to remain in the customs union.
The issue of a customs union is a complex one, there are many different configurations - there is Turkey inside the customs union, but outside the single market, there is Norway inside the single market outside the customs union, and Switzerland outside the customs union and partially in the single market.
We have to make a judgment on what is best for Britain in total, both in terms of its access to the European market and to the rest of the world. And we will make that judgment in due course and we’ll make it public in due course.
Updated
May says she still expects to trigger article 50 before end of March
Speaking to the BBC in India, Theresa May has also said that she still expects to be able to trigger article 50 before the end of March. She said:
I’m clear that I expect to be able to trigger article 50 by the end of March next year. That’s what I’ve said consistently and I continue to work on that basis. We believe the government has got strong legal arguments. We’ll be putting those arguments to the supreme court and the supreme court will make its judgment.
Richard Tice, co-chair of the Leave Means Leave campaign (a successor to Leave.EU), has welcomed David Davis’s statement. He said:
We welcome the statement made by the Secretary of State reaffirming the government’s commitment to Brexit and their pledge to deliver on it.
Remain campaigners should make no mistake – the ruling by the high court will not sabotage Brexit. It is a game being played by pro-EU campaigners who are damaging national confidence and our national economic interest. They should stop playing games and get behind the opportunities Brexit offers.
As David Davis confirmed, the timetable is still on track.
Whether the supreme court overrules the high court judgment or it comes down to a parliamentary vote, it is crucial that article 50 is triggered as soon as possible to ensure that confidence in the UK economy is maintained.
Speaking in India, Theresa May has reaffirmed her opposition to holding an early general election. But she would not rule one out, and she repeatedly said the general election should be in 2020, not that it would be then. Asked to rule out an election any time before 2020, she replied:
I’ve been clear on this right from before I became prime minister, that the next general election should be in 2020. We should get on with the job ... I think what most people want is for government to get on with the job and put in place what’s necessary. It’s going to take time. there will be negotiations, we’re getting on with it and we will be leaving the EU.
Later she added: “I don’t think I could have been clearer about an election in 2020.”
Updated
The Davis statement is finally over. I will post a summary of the key points shortly.
The SNP’s Alan Brown asks Davis why he no longer supports the case he made as a backbencher when he proposed a bill calling for parliamentary control of the executive.
Several references to @DavidDavisMP 1999 parliamentary control of the executive bill - here it is https://t.co/31ECQ16IYc
— PARLY (@ParlyApp) November 7, 2016
Other SNPs have raised this too.
John Bercow, the Speaker, says Davis does not have to reply because this does not relate to his ministerial responsibilities now.
Charlie Elphicke, the Conservative MP, says that although Labour MPs are now demanding a vote on triggering article 50, they voted against a 10-minute rule bill he proposed himself in September saying article 50 should be triggered.
The SNP’s Martin Docherty-Hughes asks Davis for an assurance that there will be no change to the rights of Irish people in the UK from Brexit.
Davis says that he thinks their rights will not change at all, but he says he will right to Docherty-Hughes with a firm answer.
Richard Drax, a Conservative, asks if the government is worried about the courts stopping ministers using prerogative powers to go to war.
Davis says that that is one of the reasons why the government is so keen to get a definitive ruling from the supreme court.
In an earlier post I wrongly described Mike Gapes as a Conservative. I’m sorry; that was just an extended typo. He is, of course, a Labour MP.
Labour’s Luciana Berger quotes from a constituent who said he voted to leave the EU, but did not vote to suspend the rule of law. So why won’t the government accept the high court judgment?
Davis says the government has a right to appeal against the court’s decision. He does not see how you can accuse the government of suspending the rule of law.
Davis says marching against the supreme court will not change its decision ‘by one comma’
Labour’s Owen Smith says Davis has seven times refused to condemn the comment from Sajid Javid last week attacking the high court. So will Davis condemn the plan to march against the supreme court.
Davis says the right to protest is an important one. But one of the good things about our judiciary is that, however many people march, it will not affect the supreme court’s ruling “by one comma”.
- Davis says marching against the supreme court will not change its decision ‘by one comma’.
Updated
Chris Bryant, the Labour MP, says Davis used to fight for parliament’s rights. But now he is fighting for the prerogative rights of the Crown.
Davis says the rights of parliament are derived from the views of the voters.
Mike Gapes, a Labour MP, asks about Philip Stephens’ column in today’s Financial Times (see 12.38pm) and asks if the government is planning a transitional exit deal.
Davis says he does not recognise anything in today’s Financial Times.
UPDATE: Earlier I wrongly described Gapes as a Conservative. Sorry. He is of course a Labour MP.
Updated
Peter Bone, a Conservative, asks why the government does not put forward a resolution approving triggering article 50 now.
Davis says he has put forward the proper government view. But the Commons can decide itself to have a resolution, he says.
This is from Sky’s Faisal Islam.
David Davis confirms that the Supreme Court is expected to return its verdict in early January... so that's 11 weeks to get it through..
— Faisal Islam (@faisalislam) November 7, 2016
...2. Actually would be 10 weeks if we want to get out of the way before the EU's 60th anniversary celebrations in Rome, apparently a factor
— Faisal Islam (@faisalislam) November 7, 2016
Islam is referring to this story, saying EU leaders hope the triggering of article 50 does not clash with the 6oth anniversary of the Treaty of Rome.
Davis says supreme court appeal judgement may not come until January
Labour’s Angela Smith asks if it right that the supreme court ruling could come in early January.
Davis says that is correct. But the government should wait until the judgment comes.
- Davis says supreme court appeal judgement may not come until January.
Updated
Davis says, as he understands Labour’s position, it would only agree to triggering article 50 with conditions attached. So it is not accepting the will of the people.
Davis says he cannot find words strong enough to say how much he “detests” the attacks on Gina Miller, the woman who brought the article 50 court case. He says from what he has heard, he thinks some of the attacks on her have been criminal.
DDavis defends Gina Miller: "I can't find words strong enough to say how much I detest attacks on her." Many amount to "crimes" he adds.
— Paul Waugh (@paulwaugh) November 7, 2016
Updated
Davis accuses MPs demanding control over Brexit of wanting to 'wreck the negotiation'
Here is a the quote from David Davis accusing MPs demanding control over the Brexit negotiating position of trying to “wreck” the negotiation. He was responding to Sir Keir Starmer. (See 3.59pm.)
I’ve said repeatedly we will be as open as we possibly can. Indeed, we’ve already set out our strategic aims for negotiation again and again. As I told this House before, and do so again today, they are bringing back control of our laws to Parliament, bringing back control in decisions over control of immigration to the United Kingdom, maintaining the strong security co-operation we have with the EU, and establishing the freest possible market in goods and services with the EU and with the rest of the world. None so deaf as those who will not hear.
But we won’t achieve a good negotiation outcome if this is a negotiation being run by 650 people in this House of Commons or nearly 900 in the Lords. No negotiation in history has been run that way. Indeed, if parliament insists on setting out a detailed minimum negotiating position, that will quickly become the maximum possible offer from the negotiating partners. And the talk of a second referendum from some on the other benches will simply encourage those in the EU 27 to impose impossibly difficult conditions in the attempt to make sure the British people change their mind. In other words the whole approach is designed to wreck the negotiation.
So, parliamentary scrutiny yes. Telling the prime minister which cards to play - seeking to force her to disclose her hand to those she will be negotiating with - no.
Davis says, if you divide constituencies into leave ones and remain ones, leave would have a bigger majority in the Commons than Tony Blair had in 1997.
Bob Neill, the Conservative chair of the justice committee, says the attacks on the judiciary have been “disgraceful”.
Davis says everyone knows he believes in the independence of the judiciary.
Stephen Crabb, the Conservative former Welsh secretary, asks Davis if he agrees that it is a waste of money for the Welsh government to join the legal case.
Davis said it would not be appropriate to comment on who might join a legal case.
Davis says the government will make a decision about whether it wants the UK to stay in the customs union in due course. And it will make it public in due course.
Labour’s Emma Reynolds asks if Davis agrees with those who say the high court ruling was an attempt to block the will of the people. (She is referring to Sajid Javid’s comment on Thursday.)
Davis says it was a judgment, no more, no less. He says it did not have a political context.
Douglas Carswell, the Ukip MP, urges Davis to bring forward a motion on triggering article 50 for MPs to vote on.
Davis says the government will await the supreme court ruling.
Labour’s Karl Turner says Davis should be condemning the attacks on the judiciary, including from Davis’s own side.
Davis says he has always been a defender of the independence of the judiciary.
Nicky Morgan, the Conservative former education secretary, says Davis should bring forward a one-line bill and get it through the Commons and the Lords very quickly.
Davis said he is “very tempted”. But it is best to wait for the outcome of the supreme court appeal, he says. He says the law on this must be clarified.
Pat McFadden, the Labour MP, asks if primary legislation will be needed if the government loses at the supreme court.
Davis said that, as things stands, on the basis of the high court ruling primary legislation would be needed to allow the government to trigger article 50. But the supreme court ruling could change that, he says.
Julian Lewis, a Conservative, says that since Labour MPs say they will accept trigger article 50, why not have a vote straight away.
Davis says Lewis tempts him, but that it is best to wait until after the supreme court ruling.
Ian Paisley, the DUP MP, asks if his court case could be taken to the European court of justice.
Davis says the court case just relates to matters affecting the UK constitution.
Yvette Cooper, the Labour chair of the home affairs committee, asks Davis to condemn what Sajid Javid, the communities secretary, said last week when he claimed the high court was subverting democracy.
Davis says he did not hear Javid’s comment. But it is possible to respect a court decision while not agreeing with it, he says.
Hilary Benn, the Labour chair of the Brexit committee, asks if Davis still stands by what he said on Thursday after primary legislation being necessary if the government loses at the supreme court. And will a government document be published before such legislation gets passed?
Davis says he was commenting on the situation at the time. He says the exact response will depend on what the supreme court decides.
And he says the government will give as much information as it can, provided it does not undermine its negotiating position.
Anna Soubry, the Conservative former business minister, asks Davis to condemn the homophobic attacks on one of the judges who delivered the article 50 judgment.
Davis condemns the threats of violence directed against Gina Miller, who took the case to court.
Nick Clegg, the former Lib Dem leader, asks why parliament gets consulted about amendments to EU treaties, but not about leaving the EU.
Davis says the government has already announced the great repeal bill.
After that there will be other bills dealing with elements of the renegotiation, he says.
Davis says prerogative powers have been used over the past 40 years to increase the powers of Brussels.
Ed Miliband, the former Labour leader, asks Davis how he can build a consensus if he will not share information about his Brexit proposals.
Davis says the country is not as divided as Miliband suggests. He says that when he read what Jeremy Corbyn was demanding on Sunday, he thought he could agree with two thirds of what he was proposing.
Two Labour MP, Mike Gapes and Stephen Doughty, have criticised Davis’s response on Twitter.
In chamber listening to a woeful inadequate performance on #Wrexit by David Davis. Absolutely no content. Seems they haven't got a clue.
— Mike Gapes (@MikeGapes) November 7, 2016
Davis accuses opposition of trying to wreck the negotiations. Reality is that his approach will wreck the economy and our national unity
— Mike Gapes (@MikeGapes) November 7, 2016
David Davis providing no answers to @Keir_Starmer questions so far - just reading pre-prepared jibes. Shameful contempt for Parliament.
— Stephen Doughty (@SDoughtyMP) November 7, 2016
Davis is responding to Starmer.
He says he will work with Labour MPs that want to make a success of Brexit.
Starmer says he does not want to block Brexit. But Labour MPs suggest otherwise, he says. He quotes Emily Thornberry, the shadow foreign secretary, saying more democracy is needed. And he says Owen Smith, who challenged Jeremy Corbyn for the leadership, has called for a second referendum.
Nick Clegg has also proposed a second vote, Davis says.
Davis says these are MPs who want to thwart Brexit.
He says there has been a weekend of confusion from Labour over its approach to Brexit.
Starmer wants the government to go into the negotiation “with all our cards face up”.
He says the government has been clear about what it wants: to bring back control of laws to the UK; to gain control of immigration; to get the best possible security benefits; and to get the best solution for the economy.
He says if the government sets out its bottom lines, those will become the maximum that gets offered.
Labour’s stance would undermine the negotiation, he says.
He says Davis accused Truss of failing to defend the judiciary. Davis says he does not accept that. He quotes what Truss said on Saturday.
He says he recalls a Labour home secretary attacking judges by name when Labour was in power.
And he recalls defending Peter Hain, the Labour former Northern Ireland secretary, when Hain was threatened with court action for criticising a judge.
Sir Keir Starmer, the shadow Brexit secretary, is responding. He says this is the third Commons statement Davis has given. But all three of them have said very little, he says. He says Davis did not even explain what the government would do if it lost in the supreme court.
He says the government’s approach is unravelling, and unravelling in an appalling way.
After Thursday’s high court judgment there was some attacks on the judiciary. He says he has worked in countries were the judiciary is not independent, and it is corrosive of democracy.
He says Liz Truss, the justice secretary, has failed to do her duty to stand up for the judiciary. And he says it is disappointing Davis’s statement did not condemn the media attacks on the judges.
He says the government should not have to declare its negotiating hand.
But some questions should be answered. For example:
What is the government’s stance on the single market?
Will it opt for staying in the customs union as its opening position?
What will it do to maintain existing EU relations that protect security?
Is it planning an interim deal?
Starmer says the government’s approach has been “furtive”.
Updated
Davis has finished his opening statement. It told us almost nothing new.
Davis says the government still wants to trigger article 50 by the end of March. It thinks the legal timetable will allow that.
There will be no going back on leaving the EU, he says, and no second referendum.
Parliament will have a central role in helping the government find the best way forward, he says. And he says the government wants to be as transparent as possible.
The government is holding various Brexit debates. The first starts later today, he says.
He says a Brexit select committee has been set up.
And a great repeal bill has been announced. It will be on the statute book before the UK leaves the EU.
But, he says, there is a balance between consulting parliament, and not undermining the government’s negotiating position.
The government will get on with delivering on leaving the EU, he says.
David Davis is speaking now.
He says the government’s priority at every stage since the EU referendum has been to respect the result.
MPs voted six to one to have a referendum. At the time the government said the result would be implemented, he says.
He says there was a good reason the government did not take the advice of some MPs (he is referring to Jeremy Corbyn) and invoke article 50 immediately. It needed to work out its stance, he says.
He says the government thinks it can trigger article 50 using prerogative powers.
But the high court came to a different view, he says.
He says the court took the view that the government cannot use prerogative powers to change the law of the land without using legislation. And it decided that the effect of leaving the EU would be to take away rights created by the European Communities Act 1972, he says.
He says the government values the independence of the judiciary and the freedom of the press.
The government still thinks triggering article 50 is a matter for the government using prerogative powers. It will appeal, he says.
Given the appeal, it is right not to comment further, he says.
But he says the government can take an appeal straight to the supreme court. It hopes that the hearing will be held in early December, and that the result will be given soon afterwards.
The government’s core case remains that it can use prerogative powers to trigger article 50, he says.
He says a case in Northern Ireland came to a different conclusion. There will be a hearing to decide whether that case gets appealed to the supreme court too, he says.
David Davis gives Commons statement on article 50 ruling
In the Commons David Davis, the Brexit secretary, is about to make a Commons statement about Thursday’s high court ruling saying the government should not trigger article 50 without consulting parliament.
Matthew Elliott, head of the Vote Leave campaign, has responded to the news that an academic has asked the Crown Prosecution Service to take it to court for misleading voters during the referendum campaign.
We wish "bob" well @EuroGuido https://t.co/wmYWXYttt7
— Matthew Elliott (@matthew_elliott) November 7, 2016
In India reporters travelling with Theresa May bumped into Geoffrey Boycott in a hotel lobby, and he has been singing the praises of the prime minister. She’ll be pleased. She once said she had been a Boycott fan all her life.
My colleague Anushka Asthana has the story.
Narendra Modi, the Indian prime minister, has been tweeting about his meetings with Theresa May today. His Twitter account has 24.1m followers. Theresa May’s personal account (@theresa_may) has fewer than 200,000, and the official prime ministerial one (@Number10gov) only has 4.8m.
PM @theresa_may & I met CEOs from India and UK this morning. pic.twitter.com/FlO46gFl1M
— Narendra Modi (@narendramodi) November 7, 2016
Participated in India-UK Tech Summit with PM @theresa_may. Scope of India-UK cooperation in technology, R&D, innovation is immense. pic.twitter.com/mWTkwfFnbX
— Narendra Modi (@narendramodi) November 7, 2016
India-UK cooperation in science & technology is driven by ‘high quality’ and ‘high impact’ research partnerships which benefit our nations.
— Narendra Modi (@narendramodi) November 7, 2016
Also highlighted the great opportunity for India & UK to cooperate in @makeinindia & @_DigitalIndia initiatives. https://t.co/yxYOSeIZhZ
— Narendra Modi (@narendramodi) November 7, 2016
Talks with PM @theresa_may focussed on multiple aspects of India-UK relations & how to add more strength to this partnership. @Number10gov pic.twitter.com/uCN7R77nQG
— Narendra Modi (@narendramodi) November 7, 2016
India-UK ties are geared to meeting the 21st century challenges & contributing to global good. https://t.co/p7bcAUFd8T
— Narendra Modi (@narendramodi) November 7, 2016
Lunchtime summary
- Sir Keir Starmer, the shadow Brexit secretary, has said that Labour wants the UK to remain in the customs union as it leaves the EU. It also wants special arrangements for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, he said. Starmer was speaking as he confirmed that Labour will not block any legislation giving the government the right to trigger article 50, starting the EU withdrawal process. But Labour may try to amend the legislation, Starmer said. (See 11.48am.)
- A cabinet minister has refused to rule out the government seeking fast-track parliamentary approval to begin Brexit if it loses its appeal to the supreme court. Theresa May is being urged by some colleagues to get MPs to vote on a resolution, not a bill, instead to speed up the process and minimise the risk of amendments. On the Today programme Damian Green, the work and pensions secretary, suggested this was an option, saying: “The parliamentary process hasn’t yet been decided.” (See 9.50am.) But last week David Davis, the Brexit secretary, said that if the supreme court confirms that parliament needs to be given a vote, there would have to be an act of parliament. And today a Downing Street spokesman also said that the “logical conclusion” from last week’s high court ruling was that the government would need an act of parliament. Sky News says a bill is already being drafted. Davis will make a statement to MPs on this at 3.30pm, and Starmer will be responding for Labour.
- Ukip’s outgoing leader Nigel Farage has been accused of wanting to “intimidate” the supreme court after it emerged he is planning to lead a march against it when it considers the article 50 appeal. (See 12.10pm.) Charley Pattison, the Green party’s justice spokesperson, said:
Nigel Farage’s planned march appears nothing more than an attempt by the interim Ukip leader to intimidate the supreme court and to undermine the rule of law. The Green party is clear that the independence of the judiciary is integral to a functioning democracy and the preservation of the rule of law.
- Theresa May has offered a deal with India which could see more visas for the country’s nationals to come to the UK in return for an increase in the number of illegal migrants sent back.
- May has rejected claims that her Conservative party conference jibe about “citizens of the world” was aimed at people like Mark Carney, the Bank of England governor. Carney, a Canadian, reportedly took it personally when May told Tories:
If you believe you’re a citizen of the world, you’re a citizen of nowhere. You don’t understand what the very word ‘citizenship’ means.
Asked about to explain her comment on her trip to India, May said:
I believe that businesses operating in the UK - as UK businesses operating in other countries - have responsibilities within those countries, which was what I have been talking about in terms, for example, of payment of tax.
What I was talking about was the importance of people recognising the role that they play in local communities and the responsibilities that they have in any country they are operating in to abide by the rules and pay their tax.
She also said that comments in her speech about the need to help those affected by “some bad side effects” of quantitative easing were not intended as a criticism of, or a threat to, the Bank’s independence. She told reporters:
What I said in that speech was that I think we need to recognise the impact of decisions - necessary decisions - that have been taken in the monetary field. The Bank of England is independent. They make these decisions as to what is necessary and it’s right that they do so.
Updated
How journalism works - part 974.
Asked about the American elections, a Number 10 spokesman told lobby journalists this morning: “I think the prime minister would wish them both good luck.”
Ingeniously that has become:
No10 wishes Donald Trump ‘good luck’ in tomorrow’s US Presidential showdown with Hillary Clinton: https://t.co/N0bY8wd9Uo
— Harry Cole (@MrHarryCole) November 7, 2016
And now Lib Dems are getting involved in this nonsense too.
LD's hit back: “Trump is not just mad and bad but he’s also dangerous. Why would you wish him luck?" https://t.co/N0bY8vVz2Q
— Harry Cole (@MrHarryCole) November 7, 2016
The Law Society has become the latest organisation to condemn the media attacks on the three judges who ruled last week against the government on article 50. In a statement its president Robert Bourns said:
Attacks on the judges simply because they were doing their jobs does our country no credit and government ministers must be unequivocal in their support for the rule of law, even if they disagree with the judgment.
It is part of the role of lawyers to defend unpopular causes and there has been an increasing narrative in recent months that seeks to conflate the jobs solicitors and barristers do with the causes they represent as part of our system of justice. The extension of this to disparaging and criticising judges is dangerous and damaging.
In the Guardian today my colleague Patrick Wintour says Theresa May is under pressure to make an interim deal with the EU an explicit option when the government sends its formal letter to Brussels to trigger article 50, the process that starts the two-year divorce talks.
In his Financial Times (subscription) column today Philip Stephens suggests this is exactly what May is planning.
Privately as well as publicly, the prime minister dismisses binary alternatives. She prefers to contemplate what you might call a “long” Brexit. Britain will be out of the union within two years or so but nothing too disruptive will happen until many years beyond that.
Mrs May has two political goals. The first is to guarantee that Britain is formally outside the EU well before the election due in mid-2020: “The people voted for Brexitand I delivered it.” The second is to ensure that the costs of severing ties with the EU are not so high as to sink the economy and with it the government’s standing.
Her preference, though nothing yet is decided, seems to be an Article 50 negotiationthat has as one of its central objectives agreement on a long transition period — five years or more — in which most of the trickier aspects of the divorce are settled.
Stephens also says the government should have a proper debate on its Brexit strategy.
Talk of protecting the government’s “negotiating hand” is nonsense. Mrs May does not have much of a hand to reveal. The government has yet to reach a settled position on any of the big issues, whether that be access to the single market, membership of the customs union or the extent of national control of the border. This is before it confronts arrangements for security, criminal justice and scores of other programmes.
Ministers are still wrestling with first principles as they wake up to the costs and complexities of unravelling four decades of integration. Mrs May has learnt that pleasing the tabloids with ringing declarations that she will “take back control” comes at the expense of alarming the investors upon whom Britain’s depends for its prosperity.
Nigel Farage and Leave.EU, the pro-Brexit pressure group which has been re-activated, are planning a march on the supreme court on the day it starts hearing the article 50 appeal, the Telegraph reports.
Leave.EU is organising a mass protest led by @Nigel_Farage against the High Court ruling. More info coming soon. https://t.co/qQujFoGk2j
— LEAVE.EU (@LeaveEUOfficial) November 7, 2016
A Leave.EU spokesman told the Telegraph:
We will also be launching with all leave campaigns, including members of all political parties, a march on the supreme court to make a point that ‘Brexit means Brexit’. This will remind the government, politicians and the establishment, including the court, that they cannot ignore the democratic vote of the people in the referendum.
Starmer says Labour wants UK to stay in customs union
Sir Keir Starmer, the shadow Brexit secretary, has again been talking about Labour’s position on Brexit. In an interview with the BBC’s Victoria Derbyshire, he used much of the same language that he did in his Today interview (see 9.26am) but he also went marginally further in saying that Labour would not block the triggering of article 50. He told the programme.
We have accepted the mandate. There was a clear mandate on 23 June to leave the EU. Article 50 triggers that process, and therefore we are not going to frustrate that. But we are going to argue very loudly and very strongly for the government to disclose its plan so that we can debate it and try to reach agreement.
Asked if there were any circumstances in which Labour would vote against triggering article 50, he replied: “We are not going to frustrate the process.” Was that a no, he was asked. “Yes”, he replied.
But he also confirmed that Labour might try to amend the legislation allowing the government to trigger article 50.
If it is legislation, then of course there might be amendments put down.
And he gave some indication as to what those amendments might cover. This is what he said when asked about possible amendments.
We are clear that we need the fullest possible access to the single market, that we should be in the customs union, and that there should be special arrangements for Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland.
This is significant because, in two respects, it goes further than by Jeremy Corbyn in his Sunday Mirror interview and by Tom Watson in his Radio 5 Live interview yesterday.
- Starmer says Labour wants UK to stay in customs union.
- He says the Brexit deal should include special arrangements for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
Starmer’s comments about not blocking an article 50 bill imply that, if Labour’s amendments on, for example, the customs union were voted down by the government, it would not vote against the bill as a whole at third reading.
But his words are also an open invitation to Tory MPs who favour a “soft” Brexit to vote with Labour in favour, for example, of an amendment saying that staying in the customs union should be a priority.
Starmer also said in his interview that Labour accepted that the Brexit talks would have to involve some curbs on freedom of movement. But he suggesting that protecting the economy was more important than controlling immigration.
I accept also that freedom of movement, and changes to the way freedom of movement rules operate, have to be part of the negotiation. What I want is for the government to aim high, to put the economy and jobs first, of course to negotiate on freedom of movement, and get the best possible outcome.
- Starmer suggests protecting the economy more important than curbing immigration in Brexit talks.
This is significant because over the summer Theresa May indicated that, for her, controlling immigration was the number one Brexit priority (although recent comments from the government, perhaps influenced by the economic impact assessments ministers have been reading, suggest that business interests are increasingly seen as pre-eminent.)
There are two statements in the Commons this afternoon.
2 statements from 3.30pm - your guess is as good as ours on actual titles 1. High Court Judgement @DavidDavisMP/@Keir_Starmer 2. Defence
— Labour Whips (@labourwhips) November 7, 2016
In an article for the Daily Telegraph (paywall) Nigel Farage, the interim Ukip leader, says a party like Ukip could emerge in the US if Donald Trump loses the presidential election. He says:
There is no doubt that the result of this contest will be tight. I still believe that non-voters desperate for genuine change will tip the result in favour of Trump. What is absolutely certain is that, even if he loses, the Ukip-style passion of the average Trumpite will not go away.
If the Republican nominee does not win, do not doubt the possibility of a genuine third party emerging in the US. I say this because I don’t think the Republican establishment will ever fully accept Trump – rather like the way the Conservative party here feels about me. What is clear to me is that, imperfect though the Donald may be, he is the agent for change in this election. And, importantly, he likes our country. Either way, things can never be the same again.
Here are some pictures from Theresa May’s talks with her Indian counterpart, Narendra Modi, in Delhi.
Mats Persson, who worked as an adviser to David Cameron on EU policy before the referendum, has written a good article for the Times (paywal) on the lessons to be learnt from the failed EU renegotiation. He has identified three.
First, the UK government should have been more ambitious.
First: we under-bid. In fact, though we had plenty of media and party political tactics, we went into the talks without a sufficiently clear strategy for change in Europe. Cameron’s brilliant 2013 Bloomberg speech – envisioning sweeping EU reform (but not mentioning immigration ironically) – was incrementally distilled down to a less ambitious opening bid in the renegotiation. Even some European leaders suggested more ambition. As one diplomat put it, “In Europe, we ask for 10 things in order to get 6, you ask for 4 things to get 4. Why?”
Second, the politicians gave officials too much power.
The second mistake: we outsourced political decisions to UK and EU civil servants, who, naturally, are more cautious about what’s achievable. Between June and mid-autumn 2015, the most substantive discussions were conducted between officials from the UK, European Commission and European Council. These “technical talks” were meant to be purely legal but were in reality at least in part political, with options effectively being taken off the table.
And, third, the government ran out of time.
The third mistake: we got timed out. European partners knew we were very unlikely to walk away from the table at the EU summit in February this year as that would kill a June vote. That self-imposed deadline hurt our leverage.
The two year time-table contained in Article 50 is, arguably, the government’s biggest challenge in achieving a successful Brexit. Control over the clock equals leverage. The government should jump at any opportunity to build in more time.
And here is his conclusion.
If there is one rule for a Conservative prime minister in EU talks it’s probably that you can get more than your civil servants claim, but less than your backbenchers think. I suspect that will be true of the Brexit talks as well.
Sky News says the government is preparing a bill in case it loses the supreme court appeal against the high court ruling saying parliament must be consulted on triggering article 50.
@BethRigby breaks news that government is preparing a bill (not a resolution) to trigger Article 50, despite appeal, to hit March timetable.
— Robert Nisbet (@RobNisbetSky) November 7, 2016
Damian Green, the work and pensions secretary, dodged a question on this this morning (see 9.50am) but David Davis, the Brexit secretary, said last week that there would have to be primary legislation and it is not surprising to hear that lawyers have started drafting a bill in case it is needed.
At the event with her Indian counterpart Theresa May also said that Britain’s willingness to relax visa rules for Indians coming to the UK would be linked to India’s willingness to take back nationals who have overstayed.
She said the government would consider further improvements to its visa offer “if at the same time we can step up the speed and volume of returns of Indians with no right to remain in the UK.”
Theresa May is speaking at the press event with Narendra Modi now.
She has announced plans for the London listing of a second wave of Indian rupee-denominated “masala bonds”. This is what the Press Association filed earlier.
The announcement comes after the issuing of more than 900m worth of masala bonds in London since the successful launch in July of the world’s first Indian offshore bond in the City.
The four new rupee-denominated bonds, worth around 600m, are expected to be listed in London within the next three months, with the aim of raising finance for investments in India’s highway, rail and energy infrastructure.
The heavily-oversubscribed Housing Development Finance Corporation (HDFC) bond launched in London in July 2016 marked the beginning of a global offshore masala bond market, which officials expect to be worth around 81 billion by 2020.
The new bonds will be issued by Indian government-backed corporates Indian Railway Finance Corporation (IRFC), Indian Renewable Energy Development Agency (IREDA), Energy Efficiency Services Limited (EESL), and National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) by the end of January 2017.
May said: “This is another vote of confidence in our world-leading financial services and further proof that Britain is open for business. This government will continue to work closely with both India and our financial services sector to ensure our growing rupee bond market continues to help finance India’s ambitious infrastructure investment plans.”
Damian Green, the work and pensions secretary, was also on the Today programme this morning. He was mostly talking about the benefits cap, which comes into force today at a new, lower level, but he also addressed Brexit.
He said it would be “foolish” for the government to give away in advance its negotiating strategy on issues such as future access to the EU single market.
All these choices are being framed in binary ways. The more everyone looks at the detail of this, there are various ways you can approach the single market. There are huge complications here.
He also said the government had not yet decided how parliament would have a say on triggering article 50 if the government loses its appeal to the supreme court. “The parliamentary process hasn’t yet been decided,” he said.
Some people are suggesting that the government could just invite MPs to vote for a resolution backing the triggering of article 50. But David Davis, the Brexit secretary, said last week that primary legislation (ie, a bill going through the Commons and the Lords, subject to amendment in the usual way) would be necessary, and Sir Keir Starmer, the shadow Brexit secretary, said the same in an interview on Sky News this morning.
In India Theresa May is addressing the press with Narendra Modi, the Indian prime ministers. But they will not be taking questions, according to the Financial Times’ Jim Pickard.
A press conference with no questions from the press: very 2016. pic.twitter.com/wgcunqugvS
— Jim Pickard (@PickardJE) November 7, 2016
There has been some confusion over the Labour party’s stance on whether it will vote in favour of triggering article 50, the process that starts the EU withdrawal process. Sir Keir Starmer, the shadow Brexit secretary, has been giving interviews this morning to try to clear up the party’s position, although he has not managed to eliminate all ambiguity.
The problem started when Jeremy Corbyn, the Labour leader, gave an interview to the Sunday Mirror setting out Labour’s four demands for Brexit. The article was headlined “Jeremy Corbyn gives Theresa May ultimatum: Agree to Labour’s Brexit terms or I’ll force election in spring”, although Corbyn’s own quotes did not put it as starkly as that.
Then yesterday Tom Watson, the deputy Labour leader, seemed to give a different messsage when he appeared on Radio 5 Live. He said: “We’re not going to hold this up. The British people have spoken and article 50 will be triggered when it comes to Westminster.”
This morning Starmer was on the Today programme. Broadly he was taking the Watson view, saying at least twice that Labour would “not frustrate the [article 50] process”. But he also said four times that Labour would “not simply vote down article 50”, implying its support for article 50 was conditional, and that it would only back triggering article 50 if the government gave certain assurances.
Of course we must have discussions about [the terms of Brexit]. We can’t have a vote in a vacuum. And we can’t proceed with this approach where the prime minister says I hold all the cards for the future of the UK in Europe, and its relationship with Europe, and indeed the world, and I’m not going to disclose even the basic terms to parliament. So of course we need that discussion.
But when Starmer was pressed on this, he did at one point say Labour would “not vote down article 50” without including the word “simply”. He also said Labour would not vote down article 50 “come what may” (ie, under any circumstances).
He said Labour wanted the government to set out its plans for Brexit.
We want to have the plan before parliament. That needs to be subject to scrutiny ... This is the future of all of us, and the future of our children. We should be proceeding on the basis of a consensus across parliament, not forced divisions.
But he left it unclear what Labour might do if the government failed to proved it with the assurances it is seeking. He ruled out blocking article 50 completely, but he did not rule out using the legislation that will have to go through parliament (assuming the government loses its case in the supreme court) to attach some sort of conditions to article 50 approval.
I will be covering any reaction to his interview that comes in.
Here is the agenda for the day.
1.45pm: Nicola Sturgeon, the Scottish first minister, visits the University of Sheffield, where she will later deliver a lecture on “Scotland and the UK: economic policy after the EU referendum”.
3.30pm: David Davis, the Brexit secretary, is expected to give a Commons statement about the high court ruling last week saying parliament must be consulted on triggering article 50.
Around 4.30pm: MPs are due to begin a debate on exiting the EU and workers’ rights, the first of several debates being scheduled by the government ahead of article 50 being invoked. But it is just a general debate and there will be no vote.
There is also Theresa May’s visit to India.
I will be covering the article 50 statement and the opening of the Brexit debate in detail but, as usual, I will also be covering the breaking political news as it happens, as well as bringing you the best reaction, comment and analysis from the web. I will post a summary at lunchtime and another in the afternoon.
If you want to follow me or contact me on Twitter, I’m on @AndrewSparrow.
I try to monitor the comments BTL but normally I find it impossible to read them all. If you have a direct question, do include “Andrew” in it somewhere and I’m more likely to find it. I do try to answer direct questions, although sometimes I miss them or don’t have time. Alternatively you could post a question to me on Twitter.
Updated
