Get all your news in one place.
100’s of premium titles.
One app.
Start reading
The Guardian - UK
The Guardian - UK
Politics
Andrew Sparrow (now) and Peter Walker (until 2.30pm)

Brexit debate: government easily defeats 4 opposition bids to amend article 50 bill - as it happened

Ken Clarke backs Labour call for EU nationals in UK to get right to stay

Article 50 debate - Summary

Here are the key points from Monday’s article 50 committee stage debate.

  • Ministers have comfortably seen off four opposition attempts to amend the article 50 bill. Further votes are due later on Tuesday and on Wednesday, but the fact that the government never came close to being defeated will raise Theresa May’s hopes of getting the bill through the Commons without any amendments to it being added. (This is important because ministers believe the Lords will be less likely to tinker with the bill if MPs have left it unchanged.) Two Labour amendments, on parliamentary oversight and consulting devolved bodies, were defeated by majorities of 49 and 57 respectively, an SNP one on consulting with Scotland was defeated by a majority of 270, and a Plaid Cymru one calling for a report on the impact of Brexit on Wales was defeated by a majority of 63.
  • Kenneth Clarke, the former chancellor, and other some other senior Conservatives said the government should guarantee now that EU nationals living in the UK will not lose any of their rights after Brexit. The government does not want to promise this until Britons living in other EU countries get their rights guaranteed. But Clarke told MPs:

If we just cleared the position of our EU nationals now, it would put the utmost pressure on every other country to clarify the thing as well. No one is going to take any reprisals against our British nationals.

Three other Tories made the same argument: Andrew Tyrie, the chair of the Treasury committee (see 7.11pm), Heidi Allen (see 7.20pm) and Sarah Wollaston, the chair of the health committee (see 8.10pm.) MPs did not vote on this topic tonight, but these interventions suggest ministers will face a rebellion on Wednesday when a vote on this topic is expected to take place.

  • David Jones, the Brexit minister, said giving a unilateral guarantee to EU nationals living in the UK would mean “a prolonged period of stressful uncertainty” for Britons living in other EU countries. (See 8.45pm.) Echoing what Theresa May said in her statement to MPs earlier (see 4.43pm), Jones said the government wanted EU nationals living in the UK to get their rights guaranteed when Britons on the continent get similar assurances. In a separate speech the Conservative Richard Fuller said Germany’s Angela Merkel was to blame for the fact that a deal has not already been struck. He said:

I understand that it was Mrs Merkel who said no to a deal. So where are our voices talking about pressuring the German government to make an agreement on that? I’ve heard plenty of speeches today talking about Donald Trump and how we feel terrible about his policies. Well here’s something that affects British citizens in another country and not a word from anyone on that issue.

Fuller said that while he was one of five Tory MPs to back a Labour motion last year calling for the government to guarantee the rights of EU nationals in Britain, he would not support any amendments to that effect now. That was because Theresa May had made this a priority, he said.

  • Mark Harper, the Conservative former chief whip, was accused of filibustering. He made two lengthy speeches at the start of both sections of the debate, leading to Labour MPs accusing him of trying to reduce the time available for opposition MPs to promote their amendments. This is from Labour’s Steve McCabe.

And this is from Labour’s Maria Eagle.

SNP MPs also complained angrily that only two of their MPs were called in the three-hour section of the debate specifically allocated for amendments relating to the devolved legislatures.

  • The Conservative MP Alberto Costa said that his party should abandon its target to get net migration below 100,000 because no “competent British government” would implement a policy so damaging to the economy. (See 8.32pm.)
  • The Conservative MP Anna Soubry indicated that she was willing to vote against the government unless it gave MPs a proper vote on the Brexit outcome. She said she backed the proposal in NC110, an amendment tabled by Labour’s Chris Leslie which would stop the government signing a Brexit treaty with the European commission until MPs and peers have agreed it. She said:

I have made it very clear that I very much hope that the government will see the good sense as has been put forward in much of the wording of new clause 110 and some sort of compromise and sense can be achieved.

But I make it very clear: in the absence of that I will find myself perhaps with no alternative but to go against my government, the last thing I want to do.

But Soubry, who is one of May’s strongest Tory critics on Brexit, said that she disagreed with calls for EU nationals in the UK to have their rights guaranteed now because she trusted May on this issue. See 8.10pm.

That’s all from me.

Thanks for the comments.

Updated

Here is the Plaid Cymru MP Jonathan Edwards commenting on tonight’s final vote.

The Vote Leave campaign promised that Wales wouldn’t lose a penny if we left the European Union and tonight Westminster confirmed that this was a devious deception designed to convince people to vote for Brexit when they knew full well that it would lead to the people of Wales becoming poorer.

We deliberately made our amendment as amenable as possible to the Westminster parties – calling not for an outright guarantee, as we would have been entitled to do, but simply calling for a report outlining the impact that Brexit will have on Wales’ public finances. That Westminster refuses even to commit to producing a report shows just how desperate they are to avoid the truth being laid bare.

Wales receives £245m more than it contributes to the EU every year. Losing this will hit people in their pockets and it is those people who can least afford to lose it that will bear the greatest burden.

The letter published by the Vote Leave campaign, promising that Wales will continue to get every penny it gets now, included the names of prominent Tory MPs who tonight voted explicitly against their own promises.

It is a disgrace that these politicians can get away with such shameful deception and it is no wonder that the public have such little faith in Westminster when such deception can be accepted with no consequences. It is also to Westminster’s great shame that in a three-hour debate on devolved matters, only one Welsh MP was called while English MPs were allowed to speak without limit in a concerted effort to silence Wales and talk-out the debate.

MPs voted down Plaid Cymru amendment calling for report on impact of Brexit on Wales by majority of 63

MPs have voted down the Plaid Cymru amendment by 330 votes to 267 - a majority of 63.

Jo Stevens, who was shadow Welsh secretary until she resigned last week so she could vote against article 50, says she and other Labour MPs will be voting with Plaid Cymru.

Updated

MPs vote on Plaid Cymru amendment calling for report on impact of Brexit on Wales

MPs are now voting on the lead Plaid Cymru amendment, NC158. This is what it says:

Continued levels of EU funding for Wales

Before the Prime Minister exercises the power under section 1, the Secretary of State must lay a report before— (a) Parliament, and (b) the National Assembly for Wales outlining the effect of the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the EU on the National Assembly for Wales’ block grant.

MPs vote down SNP amendment by majority of 270

MPs have voted down the SNP amendment (see 00.12am) by 332 votes to 62 - a majority of 270.

Labour are abstaining on this vote. Here are two SNP commenting on Twitter.

MPs vote on SNP amendment saying government should agree Brexit plan with Scotland

MPs are now voting on an SNP amendment, NC26. It is the one Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh moved earlier, using Theresa May’s own words from July last year about getting a UK-wide approach to Brexit. (See 10.08pm.) It says:

Agreement of the Joint Ministerial Committee on European Negotiation

The Prime Minister may not exercise the power under section 1(1) until at least one month after all members of the Joint Ministerial Committee on European Negotiation have agreed a UK-wide approach to, and objectives for, the UK’s negotiations for withdrawal from the EU.

MPs vote down Labour amendment on consulting devolved bodies by majority of 57

MPs have voted down the Labour amendment requiring the government to consult Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland during the Brexit talks by 333 votes to 276 - a majority of 57.

Here is Joanna Cherry tweeting about being told to stop speaking by Lindsay Hoyle, the deputy speaker.

MPs vote on Labour amendment saying government should consult JMC during Brexit talks

MPs are now voting on NC4, an amendment tabled by Labour’s front bench. This is what it says:

Joint Ministerial Committee (EU Negotiations)

(1) In negotiating and concluding any agreements in accordance with Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union, Ministers of the Crown must consult, and take into account the views of, a Joint Ministerial Committee at intervals of no less than two months and before signing any agreements with the European Commission.

(2) In the course of consulting under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must seek to reach a consensus with the devolved administrations on— (a) the terms of withdrawal from the European Union, and (b) the framework for the United Kingdom’s future relationship with the European Union.

(3) Subject to subsection (4) The Joint Ministerial Committee shall consist of— (a) the Prime Minister, (b) Ministers of the Crown, (c) the First Minister of Scotland and a further representative of the Scottish Government, (d) the First Minister of Wales and a further representative of the Welsh Government, and (e) the First Minister of Northern Ireland, the Deputy First Minister of Northern Ireland and a further representative of the Northern Ireland Executive.

(4) The Prime Minister may, for the purposes of this Act, determine that the Joint Ministerial Committee shall consist of representatives of the governing authorities of the United Kingdom, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

Jenny Chapman, the shadow Brexit minister, responds to Walker.

She says Walker said the joint ministerial committee (which enables the UK government to consult the devolved governments) was not a statutory footing. But that is the point of the Labour amendment, she says.

He calls for a vote on the Labour amendment.

Walker says the supreme court ruled that international matters are reserved to the Westminster government. Scotland does not have a veto. But that does not mean that the government does not want to consult with Scotland.

He says the UK government remains committed to the Good Friday agreement.

He says a national convention would cause unacceptable delay to the timetable backed by the Commons for Brexit.

He urges the opposition parties to withdraw their amendments.

Robin Walker's speech

Robin Walker, the Brexit minister, starts to speak.

The SNP’s Ian Blackford raises a point of order. He says only two SNP voices have been heard, on an issue of key importance to Scotland.

Lindsay Hoyle, the deputy speaker, says if it had not been for him, the SNP would have got just one speech.

Lindsay Hoyle, the deputy speaker, is engaged in a row now with Alex Salmond. Hoyle interrupted Joanna Cherry to say she was going on for too long, and called the minister instead. Alex Salmond raised a point of order, saying Hoyle had no right to shut her up. Hoyle said he only agreed to call her after agreeing with the SNP whip she would get two minutes to speak.

Joanna Cherry, the SNP MP, is speaking now. She congratulates Tory MPs for their “quite extraordinary display of hubris and contempt” shown towards Scotland. They will have boosted the cause of the SNP, she says.

Anna Soubry says Malhotra’s amendment proposes including MEPs in the national convention. Would that mean Nigel Farage getting a seat?

Malhotra says she would like MEPs to contribute their expertise, but she sidesteps the question about whether she would like to see the former Ukip leader playing a part.

Labour’s Seema Malhotra is speaking now. She is proposing an amendment that she has tabled, NC168, saying there should be a national convention to discuss Brexit before article 50 is triggered.

The Conservative Charlie Elphicke accused the SNP of ignoring the results of three referendums: the one on the alternative vote; the one on Scottish independence; and the one on EU membership.

The SDLP’s Mark Durkan told MPs that it was a mistake to think leaving the EU would not have an impact on Northern Ireland and the Good Friday agreement. He urged MPs to vote for his party’s amendment 86 which would require the government to take the Good Friday agreement into account when triggering article 50.

Owen Paterson, the Conservative former environment and former Northern Irleand secretary, is speaking now. He says most of the SNP amendments are “wholly vexatious” and just intended to obstruct the Brexit process. He accuses the SNP of forgetting three simple words: “You lost twice.”

Alex Salmond, the former SNP leader, says his party won 56 out of 59 seats in Scotland at the general election.

Paterson also says he does not accept that Brexit will destabilise the peace process in Northern Ireland. As Northern Ireland secretary, he cannot recall EU officials getting involved in affairs in Northern Ireland at all. He says if the UK leaves, it will have “shedloads of money”, some of which can go to Northern Ireland.

Labour’s Ian Murray asks what Paterson means by “shedloads”. Does that amount to £350m a week, as the Vote Leave bus promised?

Paterson says he thinks the UK will gain about £10bn a year from Brexit.

Updated

Jonathan Edwards, the Plaid Cymru MP, is moving the various Plaid Cymru amendments. He says he hopes the party will get the chance to push its main one, NC158, to a vote. It says the government should not be allowed to trigger article 50 until it has published a report saying what effect Brexit will have on Wales’s finances. He says this is designed to ensure that the promises made by the leave campaign, about Wales not losing funding from Brexit, are met.

He says the article 50 bill could be the biggest job-killing act in Welsh history.

Redwood says access to the single market is more important than membership of it. Membership of it comes with obligations, he says.

He says all MPs want maximum access to the single market. And they are more likely to achieve it without the SNP amendments, he says.

John Redwood, the Conservative pro-leave campaigner, is speaking now. He says the SNP’s amendments are about Scotland being consulted. They do not say anything about England being consulted on the Brexit decision.

The SDLP’s Mark Durkan says this part of the debate is meant to be about amendments relating to the devolved administrations and legislatures.

Redwood says his point still stands.

Updated

The SNP’s Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh rises to move the SNP amendments. She says Theresa May’s introduction to the white paper on Brexit talks about the UK being one nation. But it is not, she says. It is four nations.

Jacob Rees-Mogg, a Conservative, asks about the SNP’s amendment NC26 [new clause 26]. It says the prime minister must not trigger article 50 until “all members of the joint ministerial committee on European negotiation [the body involving the devolved adminstrations] have agreed a UK-wide approach to, and objectives for, the UK’s negotiations for withdrawal from the EU.” Would that give the SNP a veto on triggering article 50, he asks.

Ahmed-Sheikh says these are not the SNP’s words. They are taken from what Theresa May herself said in July last year when she went to Scotland and said she wanted a UK-wide approach to Brexit. May said at the time:

I have already said that I won’t be triggering article 50 until I think that we have a UK approach and objectives for negotiations.

(Alex Salmond, the former SNP leader, quoted this himself earlier. He pointed out that May did not use that phrase now. Instead May just talks about wanting the devolved administrations to be “fully engaged” in this process.)

Updated

Here’s the SNP MP Owen Thompson also accusing Mark Harper of time wasting.

Barry Sheerman, the Labour MP, raises a point of order. He says Mark Harper has been speaking for 22 minutes. He accuses him of time wasting, and trying to stop other MPs speaking.

Natascha Engel, the deputy speaker, says there are no time limits on speeches at this stage of the debate. But she says Harper will have heard the mood of the House.

Here are two Labour MPs commenting on the result of the first vote. (See 9.02am.)

Mark Harper, the Conservative former chief whip, is speaking now. He says putting the consultation process, NC4, in statute would make it justiciable. This would lead to legal challenges and delays.

Sir Oliver Letwin says Labour’s Jenny Chapman spoke about the amendment “embedding” the Scottish government in the process. Wouldn’t that be like embedding Napoleon in Wellington’s command, he asks.

Harper accepts the analogy.

Just to clarify what is going on - MPs are debating amendments to the article 50 bill in various stages over the next three days.

My colleague Jessica Elgot has written a detailed guide to the process.

Updated

MPs begin second section of article 50 committee stage debate

Jenny Chapman, another shadow Brexit minister, is now opening the second stage of the committee stage debate for Labour. She is moving NC4.

She explains what it says. It would require the government to consult, and take into account the views of, the devolved legislatures at least every two months during the Brexit talks and before signing any agreement.

The SNP’s Alan Brown says Labour has just been defeated. Will Labour continue to vote for article 50 on Wednesday if all its amendments fail?

Chapman says Labour hopes to win the votes on its amendments.

Sir Oliver Letwin, a Conservative, asks how the government can achieve consensus if the Scottish government is opposed to article 50 being triggered and the Westminster government is in favour.

Chapman says that would be difficult. MPs laugh. Chapman says she said it was difficult, not that it was funny.

Labour’s Chris Leslie raises a point of order. He asks, with so many amendments tabled, what can be done to ensure more of them are put to a debate.

Natascha Engel, the deputy speaker, says the clerks studied the amendments closely and grouped the amendments like this. She says it was decided to have a vote on the lead amendment, NC3. She says she does not have to discuss this further. But the amendment on the rights of EU nationals will be put to a vote on Wednesday, she says.

Labour’s Stephen Doughty asks if it is the case that only the lead amendment will get put to the vote when each group of amendments is debated.

Engel says that is not the case. But with the first group of amendments, it was decided to put just one to a vote, she says.

MPs vote down Labour amendment on parliamentary oversight of Brexit by majority of 49

MPs have voted down the Labour amendment demanding periodic reports on the Brexit talks (see 8.51am) by 333 votes to 284 - a majority of 49.

Updated

MPs vote on Labour's amendment about parliamentary oversight of Brexit negotiations

MPs are now voting on NC3, an amendment from the Labour front bench. It says:

Parliamentary oversight of negotiations

Before issuing any notification under Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union the Prime Minister shall give an undertaking to—

(a) lay before each House of Parliament periodic reports, at intervals of no more than two months on the progress of the negotiations under Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union;

(b) lay before each House of Parliament as soon as reasonably practicable a copy in English of any document which the European Council or the European Commission has provided to the European Parliament or any committee of the European Parliament relating to the negotiations;

(c) make arrangements for Parliamentary scrutiny of confidential documents.

Labour’s Matthew Pennycook, the shadow Brexit minister, is now winding up.

He says Labour will push NC3 to a vote.

MPs are now voting.

Sir Gerald Howarth, a Conservative, says he tells his EU national constituents who are worried about this to write to their own governments.

Jones says that is a good point. He says he has discussed this many times with his EU counterparts. They say this is a matter of simple humanity that must be addressed as soon as the Brexit negotiations start. But he says that negotiation will have to wait until the Brexit talks start.

Jones now turns to the status of EU citizens.

Providing certainty to these people is an important priority for government, he says.

All the amendments on this share the same aim; guaranteeing the status of EU nationals.

The government wholeheartedly agrees with this aim, he says. He says Theresa May made that clear in her statement earlier. (See 4.43pm.)

We would all be poorer without the contribution EU nationals make, he says.

He says this is not an issue of principle. It is just a matter of timing. The government wants this resolved at the earliest opportunity, he says.

This is less an issue of principle than one of timing, with a few EU countries insisting, frankly, that there can be no negotiation without notification and that therefore nothing can be settled until article 50 is triggered.

We could not be clearer about our determination to resolve this issue at the earliest possible opportunity, ensuring the status of UK nationals in the EU is similarly protected.

Some have called for a unilateral guarantee now, but we have a very clear duty to UK citizens living in other member states, of whom there are about one million, to look after their interests and provide as much certainty for their futures as well.

The suggestion from some, effectively that we should offer that unilateral guarantee to EU nationals in the UK, whilst at the same time failing to achieve security for our own nationals abroad, is a course that would carry the risk of a prolonged period of stressful uncertainty for them, which we are not prepared to accept.

Updated

Jones says that, if any of the amendments obliging ministers to report to parliament about the Brexit process were put on the face of the bill, thy would become justiciable. That would lead to further legal challenges and delays, he says.

Jones says the government has been clear that it will not give less information to this parliament than it gives to the European parliament.

But the Labour amendment, NC3, is flawed, he says because it says parliament must get any document that the European commission or the European council gives to the European parliament. But the government does not control what documents the commission and the council hand over, he says.

David Jones' speech

David Jones, the Brexit minister, is winding up now for the government.

He says he will not be accepting any of the amendments.

He says David Davis, the Brexit secretary, has given statements to the Commons more frequently than every two months, as Labour is demanding in NC3. (See 4.47pm.)

A lot of [the opposition amendments] are unnecessary because what they’re seeking to achieve is effectively already being done by the government. No-one can deny that the secretary of state has been absolutely assiduous in his engagement with parliament. It’s been the source of intense scrutiny over the past seven months.

Labour’s Helen Goodman says once the Brexit talks start, government discussion on the process will close down. That is why Labour is for periodic reports to parliament, at least every two months.

Jones says it is not the case that all communication will close down.

Updated

Earlier in the debate the Conservative MP Alberto Costa, who has Italian parents, said his party should drop its target for getting net migration below 100,000. He said EU nationals had contributed an “enormous amount” to the success of the UK.

The fact is we will continue to benefit because when all of this is over we will still continue to have EU migrants coming into this country.

The difference will be that it’ll be this parliament and a government - whether Conservative, Labour or otherwise - who will determine the immigration rules.

But I cannot possibly foresee a situation where a competent British government would attempt to reduce the levels of immigration that would damage our economy, which leads me to the point made by an honourable friend of mine in the newspapers recently about a promise made in the Conservative manifesto - which we did not keep and cannot keep.

We cannot get immigration to the tens of thousands without damaging our economy.

Caroline Lucas, the Green MP, is speaking now. She says she backs the call for EU nationals living in the UK to get a guarantee now that they can stay. But instead she wants to speak about her amendment 36, which would oblige the government to publish its proposals for a transitional deal before it triggers article 50. She says this is essential.

Labour’s Wes Streeting is speaking now. He says his jaw dropped when he heard George Osborne say last week that the prime minister has chosen not to make the economy the priority in the Brext negotiations.

(The fact that Streeting is following Owen Smith suggests the Conservatives have run out of backbenchers who want to speak in this part of the debate.)

Owen Smith, the Labour MP who unsuccessfully challenged Jeremy Corbyn for the leadership last summer, goes next. He has tabled various amendments to the bill, including one saying the government should publish an impact assessment on Brexit before triggering article 50 and another saying there should be a referendum on the final deal.

He says people are entitled to know whether the Treasury still stands by the estimates it made before the referendum about the economic damage Brexit would cause.

Back in the debate Sarah Wollaston, the Conservative MP, is speaking now. She says it is “inconceivable” that the government would ever separate families who have been living in the UK for some time.

She says the government should get on and offer EU nationals an assurance that they can stay.

Anna Soubry, another Conservative and an arch pro-European, says Theresa May has given her word that she will make this a priority in the Brexit negotiations. She tells Wollaston that they should trust May on this.

Wollaston says it would be better to give an assurance to EU nationals now.

Earlier the parliamentary Labour party was meeting at Westminster. As Huffington Post’s Paul Waugh reports, Nick Brown, the chief whip, implied that there will be a three-line whip on Labour MPs on Wednesday telling them to back the article 50 bill at third reading.

Last week John McDonnell, the shadow chancellor, hinted that abstaining might instead be an option.

The Labour MP Helen Goodman, who has tabled a raft of amendments to the bill, said the ratio of number of lines of amendments to number of lines in the bill is 580 to one.

She said the referendum result did not determine how Brexit should take place.

She consulted her constituents extensively, and held six public meetings on this, she said. And she found there was considerable support for parliament being involved. People argued for this on the grounds that “you can’t trust the Tories” - their words, said Goodman, not hers.

Will Quince, a Conservative, says that the amendments tabled by Labour are all about trying to hold up the bill and the Brexit process. But Labour do not have the right to do that, he says, because they voted for the referendum.

Here is NC57 [new clause 57], the one on EU nationals tabled by Harriet Harman.

Effect of notification of withdrawal

Nothing in this Act shall affect the continuation of those residence rights enjoyed by EU citizens lawfully resident in the United Kingdom on 23 June 2016, under or by virtue of Directive 2004/38/EC, after the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the European Union.

And here is the Labour frontbench motion on EU nationals, NC8.

To move the following Clause—

EU and United Kingdom nationals

In negotiating and concluding an agreement in accordance with Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union, Ministers of the Crown must resolve to guarantee the rights of residence of anyone who is lawfully resident in the United Kingdom on the day on which section 1 comes into force in accordance with or as consequence of any provision of a Treaty to which section 1 relates, and United Kingdom nationals living in the parts of the European Union that are not the United Kingdom before the European Council finalises their initial negotiating guidelines and directives.

Updated

Alistair Carmichael, the Lib Dem MP, says the Lib Dems have tabled various amendments in this group, but he wants to focus on the issue of EU citizens.

He says he represents Orkney and Shetland. Island communities depend greatly on immigrants, he says. There is no aspect of island life where EU nationals are not present.

He says offering EU nationals the right to stay now would be an indication of good faith. It would improve the tone of negotiations, he says.

The Conservative MP Heidi Allen is speaking now, and she is focusing on the Harman amendment (NC57). She says she has constituents who are very worried about the prospect of not being allowed to stay. She says she speaks as someone with a German mother.

Robert Jenrick says more than 60% of EU nationals already have the permanent right to reside in the UK. By the time that Brexit actually happens, that figure will have gone up.

Allen says that is a valid point. But she says how people feel about their security also matters.

She says “the moral and the right thing to do” is to make a unilateral offer to EU nationals saying they can stay.

In her speech proposing her amendment (see 6.44pm), Harriet Harman, the Labour chair of the joint committee on human rights, said the government should end the uncertainty that the 3m EU nationals living in the UK face.

This is about three million people and their families, EU citizens whose future here has been thrown into doubt by the decisions in June that the UK should leave the EU.

There is nothing about the cloud of uncertainty which they now live under which is their own fault and we can, if we agree this new clause, put their minds at rest and let them look to the futures ...

It is unthinkable that [EU nationals with children] would be deported, their families divided, because we have decided to leave the EU.

Harman also warned that unscrupulous bosses are taking advantage of the uncertainty to exploit workers. She said Margaret Beels, who chairs the Gangmasters Licencing Authority, has said some bosses are telling fearful EU workers “they can’t complain about not being paid or about being subjected to unsafe conditions, because if they do they’ll be deported as they no longer have a right to be here”. Harman went on:

We are not whipping up fears, we are understanding fears and seeking to address them. It is not good, I’m afraid, the Government issuing warm words, people need certainty.

Gisela Stuart, the Labour MP who was a leading Vote Leave campaigner, also called on the government to issue a unilateral guarantee to EU nationals living in the UK. She said:

If we are putting on the table a deal which is the kind which we would expect the other 27 to offer to UK citizens we would a, set the template of what we think the right deal is, and b, set the right tone for the negotiations.

Mark Harper, the Conservative former chief whip, said in a speech that the government should not act until other EU countries guarantee the rights of Britons living in their countries because offering a unilateral promise would risk “throwing overboard the interests and concerns of UK citizens living elsewhere in the European Union”.

But Andrew Tyrie, the Conservative chair of the Treasury committee, disagreed. Intervening on Harper, Tyrie said:

Other nationals should not be treated as bargaining chips.

And he would also, I’m sure, be aware that the Treasury Committee has heard a good deal of evidence to suggest that the failure to guarantee the rights of EU nationals is now beginning to damage the economy.

Given that, and the overwhelming ethical case, doesn’t he agree, on reflection, the time has come now, just to protect these citizens’ rights?

I’ve taken the quotes from the Press Association.

This is what Matthew Pennycook, the shadow Brexit minister, said at the start of the debate about Labour backing amendments - one it has tabled itself, as well as Harriet Harman’s (see 6.44pm) - saying the government should guarantee the rights of EU nationals living in the EU now. He said:

We recognise the efforts of the prime minister and her ministers to receive a reciprocal agreement with our EU partners that would also guarantee the rights of UK nationals in other EU countries.

We owe a duty to our nationals in those countries and securing their rights must remain a priority.

But with no reciprocal agreement reached, and with just weeks to go until the triggering of article 50, we believe the uncertainty must be brought to an end by unilateral action on the part of the government.

Guaranteeing the rights of residents of EU nationals unilaterally on the date at which the article 50 notice is given will not only end the uncertainty that millions now face, it’ll ensure the best possible start to the negotiations ahead and would send a clear signal to the small minority who have treated the referendum result as a licence to victimise others that our fellow Europeans are welcome and will remain so.

I’ve taken the quotes from the Press Association.

Updated

Ken Clarke backs Labour call for EU nationals living in UK to get offered right to stay now

While I’ve been focusing on what John Bercow said about President Trump, MPs have started the committee stage debate on the article 50 bill.

The debate was opened by the shadow Brexit minister Matthew Pennycook. He was moving the lead amendment, NC3. (See 4.47am.)

We’ve also had speeches from, among others, Harriet Harman, the Labour chair of the joint committee on human rights, and Stephen Gethins, the SNP’s Europe spokesman.

Harman was speaking in support of NC57, an amendment saying Brexit would not affect the rights of EU nationals already living in the UK. This is grouped for debate now, but any votes on this issue will take place on Wednesday. In a recent report the joint committee on human rights called on the government to give a unilateral guarantee to EU nationals that they can stay, and her amendment is backed by other members of the committee.

The Labour front bench has also tabled an amendment saying the same thing.

A few minutes ago the Conservative Sir Hugo Swire was speaking against the Harman proposal. He was interrupted by his colleague Kenneth Clarke, the pro-European Conservative former chancellor.

Apparently the only reason for him holding back [ie, not backing amendments like NC57, saying EU nationals should have their right to stay in the UK guaranteed], despite the fact he shares sentiments of members opposite absolutely entirely, is he fears there is some unknown European country who if we declare that a Pole who has been living here for years can stay here, we’ve thrown away our card and British nationals will be expelled by their government. I’ve heard nobody suggest that any such country exists. We have a pedantic problem about whether we can raise it before the process has started. If we just cleared the position of our EU nationals now, it would put the utmost pressure on every other country to clarify the thing as well. No one is going to take any reprisals against our British nationals.

Swire said he hoped Clarke was right, but that he had not always been right about everything.

Alex Salmond, the former SNP leader and former Scottish first minister, has put out this statement praising John Bercow for what he said about President Trump. He said:

Well done to Speaker Bercow - people across the political spectrum have been waiting for somebody to show a bit of backbone against President Trump – not to be obsequious or to lay down before him like the Prime Minister has done.

As speaker, he is quite within his rights of course - this was to be an address from Westminster Hall and that is within the province of the speaker. Speaker Bercow has made his declaration and I am right behind him. Four more years for Speaker Bercow.

Many opposition MPs have been tweeting their support for John Bercow. Here are some of the ones from Labour MPs.

SNP MPs support Bercow too. Here are two of them.

This is from the Green MP Caroline Lucas.

And this is from the Welsh nationalist, Plaid Cymru’s Jonathan Edwards.

Here is some reaction to John Bercow’s intervention from journalists and commentators.

From the Spectator’s James Forsyth

From the Guardian’s Tom Clark

From the Mail on Sunday’s Dan Hodges

From the New Statesman’s Stephen Bush

From the Guardian’s Patrick Wintour

From the Daily Mail’s Andrew Pierce

This is from Bobby Friedman, who wrote a biography of John Bercow.

Piers Morgan, the broadcaster and friend and supporter of Donald Trump, has posted this response to Bercow’s statement on Twitter.

The Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn has welcomed John Bercow’s anti-Trump statement.

Bercow’s comments triggered an angry response in parts of government. Whitehall sources described the intervention as “hugely political and out of line”.

A government source added: “Bercow better make sure of the president’s plan before he shoots off like this. The clear indications are that the White House are not even planning to address both Houses of Parliament.”

John Bercow’s statement was greeted by cheering and applause in the House of Commons (even though MPs are not supposed to applaud in the chamber - it only happens after someone has said something exceptional.) Then the Labour MP Dennis Skinner stood up to raise another point of order. He said his point of order comprised two words: “Well done.”

What Bercow said about why Trump should not be invited to address parliament

This is what John Bercow said. He was responding to a point of order raised by the Labour MP Stephen Doughty who raised the early day motion signed by 163 MPs saying President Trump should not be invited to address parliament.

Bercow replied:

What I will say is this. An address by a foreign leader to both House of Parliament is not an automatic right. It is an earned honour. Moreover, there are many precedents for state visits to take place to our country which do not include an address to both Houses of Parliament. That’s the first point.

In relation to Westminster Hall, there are three key holder to Westminster Hall: the speaker of the House of Commons, the speaker of the House of Lords and the lord great chamberlain. Ordinarily we are able to work by consensus and the hall would be used for a purpose such as an address or another purpose by agreement of the three key holders.

I must say to the honourable gentleman, to all who signed his early day motion and to others with strong views about this matter on either side of the argument, that before the imposition of the migrant ban I would myself have been strongly opposed to an address by President Trump in Westminster Hall. After the imposition of the migrant ban by President Trump I am even more strongly opposed to an address by President Trump in Westminster Hall.

So far as the Royal Gallery is concerned, again I operate on advice, I do not perhaps have as strong a say in that matter. It is in a different part of the building [ie, in the House of Lords, not the Commons], although customarily an invitation to a visiting leader to deliver an address there would be issued in the names of the two speakers. I would not wish to issue an invitation to President Trump to speak in the Royal Gallery.

And I concluded by saying to the honourable gentleman this. We value our relationshjip with the United States. If a state visit takes place, that is way beyond beyond and above the pay grade of the Speaker.

However, as far as this place [the House of Commons] is concerned, I feel very strongly that our opposition to racism and to sexism and our support for equality before the law and an independent judiciary are hugely important considerations in the House of Commons.

UPDATE: Here is video footage of Bercow’s statement.

Commons Speaker ‘strongly opposed’ to Westminster Hall address by President Trump

Updated

Bercow says he would block invitation to Trump to speak in Westminster Hall because of his 'racism and sexism'

John Bercow, the Speaker, has just said being invited to give a speech in Westminster Hall for a foreign leader is an “earned honour”. And it is not an invitation that automatically comes with a state visit, he says.

He says is is one of three people that would have to approve an invitation to someone to speak in Westminster Hall. He would have been opposed to an address by President Trump in Westminster Hall even before the migrant ban. Since that ban, he is even more opposed to it, he says.

He says he has less influence over whether Trump gets invited to speak in the Royal Gallery (which is in the Lords). But he would oppose that too, he says.

He says this is because of the House’s opposition to “racism and sexism”.

Some MPs applaud this statement.

MPs start debating the article 50 bill amendments

MPs will soon start debating the article 50 bill amendments. This stage of the debate’s passage through the Commons (the committee stage) will run for three days, finishing on Wednesday when the bill will then gets its third reading and head for the Lords (which also has to consider the legislation).

The two-day debate last week (the second reading debate) was the occasion for the grand, set piece speeches, but this stage is more interesting because this is where MPs get the chance to amend the bill. And in theory the government could be defeated quite easily, because all it would take for the government to lose would be for a dozen or so Tory MPs to side with the opposition on a particular issue.

The article 50 bill, or the European Union (notification of withdrawal) bill, to give it its proper title, is only 137 words long. Today’s full list of amendments runs to 146 pages, as this tweet from the Conservative MP Steve Baker points out. (Baker, a leading pro-leave campaign, helped to organise pro-leave parliamentary revolts but now he has had a conversion and is complaining vocally about the prospect of fellow Tories defying the government whip.)

Today’s committee stage debate will be divided into two sections. The first part, which will last for four hours, will debate amendments relating to parliamentary scrutiny of the process for the UK’s withdrawal from the EU. And then another three hours will be spent debating amendments relating to the devolved administrations or legislatures.

Here is the full list of amendments (pdf).

At least two amendments will be put to a vote today. Here is the lead amendment in the first group, which means it will be put it a vote after four hours. It is NC3 [new clause 3] and it has been tabled by the Labour front bench. It says:

Before issuing any notification under Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union the Prime Minister shall give an undertaking to—

(a) lay before each House of Parliament periodic reports, at intervals of no more than two months on the progress of the negotiations under Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union;

(b) lay before each House of Parliament as soon as reasonably practicable a copy in English of any document which the European Council or the European Commission has provided to the European Parliament or any committee of the European Parliament relating to the negotiations;

(c) make arrangements for Parliamentary scrutiny of confidential documents.

And here is the the lead amendment in the second group. It is NC4 and it has also been tabled by the Labour front bench. It says:

Joint Ministerial Committee (EU Negotiations)

(1) In negotiating and concluding any agreements in accordance with Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union, Ministers of the Crown must consult, and take into account the views of, a Joint Ministerial Committee at intervals of no less than two months and before signing any agreements with the European Commission.

(2) In the course of consulting under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must seek to reach a consensus with the devolved administrations on— (a) the terms of withdrawal from the European Union, and (b) the framework for the United Kingdom’s future relationship with the European Union.

(3) Subject to subsection (4) The Joint Ministerial Committee shall consist of— (a) the Prime Minister, (b) Ministers of the Crown, (c) the First Minister of Scotland and a further representative of the Scottish Government, (d) the First Minister of Wales and a further representative of the Welsh Government, and (e) the First Minister of Northern Ireland, the Deputy First Minister of Northern Ireland and a further representative of the Northern Ireland Executive.

(4) The Prime Minister may, for the purposes of this Act, determine that the Joint Ministerial Committee shall consist of representatives of the governing authorities of the United Kingdom, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

Here is the document (pdf) showing how the amendments have been grouped for debate today. Mark D’Arcy wrote a good explanation of this process on his BBC blog last week.

Updated

Emily Thornberry, on a point of order, is asking if it is in order for Theresa May to call her Lady Nugee. (See 4.43pm.) Thornberry says she has never been a lady.

May says, if Thornberry was offended, she apologises. But she says the last last 30-odd years she has been known by her husband’s name.

John Bercow, the speaker, says MPs should refer to each other by their constituency, or by the job they do.

May's statement on the EU summit - Summary

Here are the main points from Theresa May’s statement so far.

  • May said that MPs who tried to amend the article 50 bill would be obstructing the will of the people. Speaking about the bill she said:

Our European partners now want to get on with the negotiations, so do I, and so does this House, which last week voted by a majority of 384 in support of the government triggering article 50.

There are of course further stages for the bill in committee and in the Lords and it is right that this process should be completed properly.

But the message is clear to all - this House has spoken and now is not the time to obstruct the democratically expressed wishes of the British people.

It is time to get on with leaving the European Union and building an independent, self-governing, global Britain.

  • She ruled out guaranteeing the rights of EU nationals to stay in the UK before EU countries have also guaranteed the rights of Britons living on the continent. She said:

On the issue of acquired rights, the general view [amongst EU leaders] is that we should reach an agreement which applied equally to the other 27 member states and the UK, which is why we think a unilateral decision from the UK is not the right way forward.

But as I have said before, EU citizens living in the UK make a vital contribution to our economy and our society, and without them we would be poorer and our public services weaker.

This is significant because MPs will debate amendments to the article 50 bill saying the UK should offer a unilateral guarantee to EU nationals living in the UK.

  • May refused to deny a suggestion that Germany was blocking an early deal on the reciprocal rights of EU nationals living in the UK and Britons living in other EU countries. (See 4.14pm.) But May played down the seriousness of the failure to reach an early agreement, saying that some countries have just resisted an early agreement because they want this considered as part of the overall Brexit talks. But she said that once article 50 is triggered this will get discussed, and she said that she thought other EU leaders also wanted this issue resolved early in the process. (See 3.53pm.)
  • May said she thought there was growing recognition that EU countries need to spend more on defence. She told MPs:

I think there is growing recognition amongst the member states of the European Union that within Nato it is important to meet the 2% commitment for expenditure on defence. I’m pleased to say a small number of other European member states have already reached that 2% level, but there are others who are actively moving towards that 2%, most notably perhaps some of the Baltic states.

  • She mocked Jeremy Corbyn for criticising the government for cutting defence spending. Corbyn accused the government of changing the way the 2% defence spending target is calculated, to make it easier to achieve. (See 3.49am.) In response May said:

He made a number of comments, in fact he devoted quite a lot of his response, to the whole question of defence, during which he said that the fact that we are spending 2% on defence in this way casts doubt on the competence of the UK government in matters relating to defence. I think this was the right honourable gentleman who said he wanted to send out our nuclear submarines without any missiles in them. You couldn’t make it up.

In a latter reply May also mocked Emily Thornberry, the shadow foreign secretary, by referring to her as Lady Nugee. Thornberry is entitled to that title, because her husband, a judge, has a knighthood, but she does not use it. May said:

And the shadow foreign secretary is shouting at me, “By you”. Yes, Lady Nugee, by me.

Updated

Sir Desmond Swayne, a Conservative, asks if the UK will get to keep any assets from the EU when it leaves.

May says she will look at all aspects of the relationship in the negotiation.

Alex Salmond, the former Scottish first minister, asks if May is still committed to not triggering article 50 until she has an agreed position with the devolved bodies.

May says she is continuing to discuss this with the devolved bodies through the JMC.

Sir Edward Leigh, a Conservative, asks if Germany is one of the countries obstructing an early deal on the reciprocal rights of EU nationals in Britain and Britons in the EU.

May sidesteps this question, but says it is a question of countries wanting to wait until the Brexit talks start.

Sir Gerald Howarth, the Conservative former defence minister, says he was surprised to hear Jeremy Corbyn advocate more defence spending. He won’t tell Stop the War, he says.

He asks May which countries are refusing to discuss guaranteeing the rights of Britons living on the continent.

May says it is not a matter of these countries being opposed to guaranteeing the rights of Britons; it is that they do not want to discuss this before the Brexit process starts.

Once article 50 is triggered, EU leaders will be able to debate this, she says.

Asked about the interview given by the German finance minister, Wolfgang Schäuble, in which he said that the EU did not want to punish the UK in the Brexit talks, May says she saw this as a sign that EU countries are starting to focus on the negotiations.

Julian Lewis, the Conservative chair of the defence committee, asks May to redouble her efforts to persuade EU leaders, and Labour, that whatever they feel personally about the US president, it is important to keep reaching out to America.

May says that was one of the themes of the summit. She encouraged other EU countries to maintain links with America.

Tim Farron, the Lib Dem leader, jokes about May offering Angela Merkel a state visit when the spoke on a walkabout. Will May confirm that the scheme offering safe haven to child Syrian refugees remains open?

May says the government remains committed to that.

Labour’s Yvette Cooper, chair of the home affairs committee, asks how it will be possible to have barrier-free trade if the UK is outside the customs union. If it becomes clear that that is impossible, will she reconsider her decision to leave the customs union.

May says Cooper is seeing this as a binary choice. It is not. She is confident the UK can get a settlement that will allow it to trade across borders, she says.

Labour’s Hilary Benn, chair of the Brexit committee, asks if the government will keep open the option of staying in the customs union.

May says she wants to increase trade. She does not address Benn’s point directly.

Sir Bill Cash, the Conservative, asks May if EU leaders were more realistic about Nato after she had spoken to them than before.

May says she thought there was a growing recognition that they need to increase defence spending, particularly amongst the Baltic states.

May is responding to Robertson.

She says everyone in the UK values the contribution that EU citizens have made.

But the UK government also has to consider the interests of British nationals in other member states.

She says there is “goodwill” all round on this. But that matter must be considered in the round.

She says she was putting forward the views of the EU, and acting on behalf of the EU as a whole.

Angus Robertson, the SNP’s leader at Westminster, also wishes the Queen the best for her Sapphire jubilee. He wishes her many jubilees to come.

He asks if May told EU leaders she would work with the Scottish government to let Scotland stay in the single market.

Did she confirm that EU nationals could stay?

Did she says that other countries like Canada show that different parts of the same country can have different immigration policies?

She says Scotland did not get a single mention in May’s statement. What Scottish priorities did she raise? Any at all?

May is responding to Corbyn.

She says Corbyn says this meeting was a “curiously named” informal council. But there is always an informal council when a new country takes the presidency.

She says she has made the UK’s position on settlements clear.

On EU nationals, she says the government values the contribution they make. But the rights of UK citizens in EU states must be guaranteed too.

She says other EU leaders want this dealt with in the round, as part of the overall negotiations.

But leaders like Mariano Rajoy, the Spanish prime minister, agree this should be addressed early in the talks, she says.

She says she agrees that Britain will still have to play a role addressing the EU migration crisis after it has left the EU.

And, on defence, she says Corbyn criticised the government over defence spending despite being the man who said he would want to sent out nuclear submarines without missile. You couldn’t make it up, she says.

Jeremy Corbyn is responding. He begins by echoing what May said about the Queen, and he thanks her for her service.

He says the last Labour government consistently spent more than 2% of GDP on defence. But this government has cut defence spending, and changed the way the 2% target is calculated, making it easier to reach. Why was that, he asks. For example, pensions are now included. Doesn’t this undermine the government’s claim that the 2% figure represents an increase?

He says the Sunday Times this weekend exposed a string of failures with defence procurement. So perhaps it is not such a good idea for the government to lecture other countries on defence spending.

He says May met the Israeli prime minister earlier today. Did she make it clear to him that there is opposition in the UK to the continuing construction of settlements on Palestinian territory?

He says the government should guarantee the rights of EU nationals living here. Will she give them the clarity they deserve?

Corbyn says Labour accepts the need to leave the EU. But it will not accept the case for turning the UK into a bargain basement tax haven.

He says May told PMQs last week that 10,000 Syrian refugees had been settled in the UK. But the House of Commons library says the true figures is less than half that, he says.

He asks what conversations May had with her Greek counterpart about the migration crisis.

Even after Brexit, Britain will still have to address this issue, she says.

May says, on Brexit, EU leaders welcomed Britain’s declaration that it wants the EU to succeed.

She says there was an agreement that there should be an early reciprocal agreement on the rights of EU nationals in the UK, and of Britons on the continent. That is why a unilateral declaration from the UK would be a bad idea, she says.

She says she hopes this will be addressed early in the talks.

And she says now is not the time to obstruct the article 50 bill.

May says she opened a discussion on America, and she told fellow EU leaders that President Trump had declared his support for Nato. But she also said that Nato countries had to increase their spending on defence, she says.

She says there are some areas where we disagree with the Trump administration. We should be clear about that, she says.

But she also argued for engaging “patiently and constructively” with America, an ally that has guaranteed the longest period of peace. The alternative would be instability, she says.

May is now discussing what was addressed at the summit.

On migration, she says EU leaders agreed on the need for a comprehensive solution to the migration problems. EU leaders agreed action in various areas, she says.

She says Britain agreed more help for the Libyan coasguard, and an extra £30m to help the most vulnerable refugees. She also proposed more action to tackle trafficking, she says.

Theresa May starts by congratulating the Queen on her 65 years on the throne. It is typical of her devotion to service that the Queen is not marking the day in any special way, May says. She says she hopes the Queen will continue to reign over us for a long time.

Updated

Theresa May's statement on EU summit

Theresa May is about to make her Commons statement on the EU summit.

Tomorrow there will be a debate in the Scottish parliament on whether the UK should trigger article 50. Edinburgh has no say in the matter, but that has not stopped the Scottish government tabling a motion saying it should not be triggered. This is from the BBC’s Philip Sim.

In the Commons last week Labour voted in favour of the bill giving the government the power to invoke article 50. But, as the i’s Chris Green says, Scottish Labour is taking a contradictory view.

Hi, I’m Andrew Sparrow, taking over from Peter.

I’ll be focusing mostly on events in the Commons now. Here are the key timings.

3.30pm: Theresa May makes a statement on the EU summit in Malta.

Around 5/5.30pm: MPs begin debating the committee stage of the article 50 bill.

Around 9/9/30pm: MPs vote on one or more of the amendments in the first group.

Around midnight/12.30am: MPs vote on one or more of the amendments in the second group.

Seven hours have been set aside for the article 50 debate tonight. Because we’ve got the May statement, it’s going to be a very late night.

I’ll be here for the duration. Perhaps there might a surprise government defeat to record but, if not, at least we’ll be providing a service for insomniacs.

The Ukip MEP Jane Collins.
The Ukip MEP Jane Collins. Photograph: Gareth Fuller/PA

An expensive day for the Ukip MEP Jane Collins – the high court in London has ordered her to pay £54,000 each to three of Rotherham’s Labour MPs over a speech she made at the party’s 2014 conference about the town’s abuse scandal.

Collins, MEP for Yorkshire and North Lincolnshire said the MPs knew many of the details of the exploitation yet chose not to intervene, and instead acted on misplaced political correctness, the libel hearing heard.

We’re still about an hour away from the start of the debate on the article 50 bill. The Commons begins today at 2.30pm, and we have education questions first. But once it gets going, the debate is being given up to seven hours of time today.

The parliament website page tracking the progress of the bill lists all the many amendments to it which have been tabled.

Earlier, the PM’s spokeswoman gave some hints that the government was not minded to accept amendments to the bill, saying the preference was for a “straightforward bill”. She said:

We are approaching this from the perspective of a constructive positive mindset and will be working with our European partners to get the right deal.

We have been clear there will the opportunity to have a vote on the final deal. The government has a mandate from the British people for the UK to leave the EU.

We have been very clear it should be a straightforward bill, giving the government the power to deliver on the decision of the British people. Parliament has already legislated to put this in the hands of the British people and we are not going to allow there to be attempts to rejoin through the back door.

Updated

Theresa May and Benjamin Netanyahu at their talks.
Theresa May and Benjamin Netanyahu at their talks. Photograph: WPA Pool/Getty Images

Here’s May and Netanyahu at the start of their talks. According to PA, the event got off to a slightly awkward start when the Israeli PM arrived at the door of No 10 to find no one there to greet him. He waited around for about 15 seconds before entering alone, emerging with May a couple of minutes later to shake hands before the cameras.

It was, Downing Street said, seemingly down to Netanyahu arriving two minutes earlier than planned.

Updated

This is what May’s spokeswoman had to say about the talks with Netanyahu just before they began, at the regular morning media briefing:

This is their first bilateral meeting, I expect the focus to be on the relationship between our two countries, how we work together and particularly to increase the prosperity of our nations.

Of course, I would expect the peace process to come up and in that context to reiterate our longstanding position to make clear that we view the continued increase as settlement activity undermining trust but also a very clear position that we have taken of needing to pursue a twin track approach, recognising the right of Israel to live safe from terrorism.

On Iran:

We share concerns about that test, it was discussed at the UN and we’ve made clear our position.

Netanyahu urges May to support new sanctions against Iran

Theresa May greets Benjamin Netanyahu on the steps of No 10.
Theresa May greets Benjamin Netanyahu on the steps of No 10. Photograph: Carl Court/Getty Images

May and Netanyahu have begun their talks in Downing Street, with the Israeli prime minister immediately urging his host to follow Donald Trump in imposing sanctions on Iran after it test-fired a ballistic missile.

Netanyahu made the comment outside No 10, before the talks had even begun. Quotes are from the Press Association:

We face challenges, that’s very clear, from militant Islam and especially from Iran. Iran seeks to annihilate Israel, it seeks to conquer the Middle East, it threatens Europe, it threatens the West, it threatens the world. And it offers provocation after provocation.

That’s why I welcome President Trump’s assistance of new sanctions against Iran, I think other nations should follow suit, certainly responsible nations.

And I’d like to talk to you about how we can ensure that Iran’s aggression does not go unanswered.

Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister, has arrived at Downing Streets for his talks and working lunch with Theresa May.

Hilary Benn criticises ministers for divisive rhetoric over Brexit

Hilary Benn speaks at the Institute for Government in London.
Hilary Benn speaks at the Institute for Government in London. Photograph: Chris J Ratcliffe/AFP/Getty Images

My colleague, Rajeev Syal, has more on Hilary Benn’s speech this morning on Brexit:

Hilary Benn, the chair of parliament’s Brexit committee, has criticised ministers including the home secretary Amber Rudd and the health secretary Jeremy Hunt for using divisive rhetoric which has damaged the UK’s standing in the world.

The former shadow foreign secretary said that the Conservative party’s annual conference was an “absolute disaster” because senior politicians portrayed an image of the UK that was insular and aggressive towards foreigners.

Indicating that such language could influence future negotiations with the EU, he also said making pronouncements about what the government would achieve from its discussions would harden attitudes towards the UK among European politicians and officials.

Benn, speaking at the Institute for Government’s headquarters in central London, said that ministers had damaged the UK’s reputation.

“When I reflect upon a certain week in Birmingham in the autumn, where people of a particular political party gathered and made speeches, I thought that was a disastrous week for Britain’s reputation in the world. Absolutely disastrous,” he said.

“Because to produce headlines saying ‘crackdown on foreign students’ - when I last checked I wasn’t aware that foreign students were a problem that we need to crack down upon, it is ridiculous to have them in the net migration target - or saying that doctors who have brought their skills come to this country can stay in the interim while we train more of our own doctor, it sent a message at that point that we are closing in on ourselves as a nation.

“That’s not what who we are it is not what Britain is. We will thrive in the future by being a welcoming country,” he said.

Ministers should also stop claiming they will achieve certain goals from the negotiations before they begin because it will only harden the opinions of those Britain is negotiating with, Benn said.

“The second difficulty has been people sitting there saying ‘we are going to get the following’ - well the 27 are thinking ‘we will see about that’... it would be prudent to change the tone,” he said.

If you’ve not see this story, a new possible impact of Brexit has emerged: higher mobile phone charges when abroad than would otherwise have been the case.

As the next stage of the article 50 debate gets underway, Conservative MPs on both sides of the debate are lining up to try to influence the government. Around a dozen Tories are hoping to push Theresa May towards more concessions on the Brexit bill, with lots of meetings taking place today.

The group - which includes Nicky Morgan, Anna Soubry, Neil Carmichael and Ben Howlett - think MPs should be given a vote on Britain’s future relationship with the EU even if no deal is hammered out. Although a source told me they were very sceptical about the demand, saying it could land the government in “perpetual Brexit purgatory”.

On the other side of the debate is the European Research Group - made up of more than 100 Tories (including most Brexiteers and a few former remainers) - who want the Article 50 legislation to pass unamended.

The chair of the group, Steve Baker, told journalists this weekend that 27 colleagues were planning to “support wrecking amendments” to the bill as a means of trying to stop them early. Now he has taken to Twitter to urge constituents to write to their local MPs demanding they do not back any amendments this week.

Hilary Benn last week in Boston, Lincolnshire, where the Brexit committee was meeting to gather evidence from local people.
Hilary Benn last week in Boston, Lincolnshire, where the Brexit committee was meeting to gather evidence from local people. Photograph: Christopher Thomond for the Guardian

My colleague Rajeev Syal is watching Hilary Benn, who chairs the Commons Brexit committee, speak at the Institute for Government thinktank this morning:

Benn just fired a warning shot for the government, saying MPs are growing more confident in their demands for a role in leaving the EU: “We [Parliament] are not going to sit on the sidelines” of Brexit talks.

The BBC has just published a fascinating new analysis of the 23 June Brexit referendum based on voting figures broken down by local authority. It obtained information from nearly half the authorities. The data doesn’t illustrate anything completely new, but reinforces some interesting themes.

The first is the apparent correlation between lower educational attainment and a propensity to vote leave, with those holding better qualifications in turn more likely to opt for remain. This BBC graphic below illustrates this well.

BBC graph
BBC graph Photograph: BBC

The other phenomenon is the link between older voters and support for Brexit – wards with older average populations tended to be more pro-leave.

The study also identifies particular strongholds for both camps. The most fervently leave ward among the 1,283 for which the BBC has data is Brambles and Thorntree in Middlesbrough, where 82.5% of the votes were for Brexit.

In contrast, the student-heavy Cambridge ward of Market saw an 87.8% vote for remain.

Morning. It’s Peter Walker here, standing in for Andrew until about 2pm. There’s two main things going on today so far, one of them, handily, in the morning, and the other taking up the rest of the day.

To the latter event first, it’s another day of debate in the Commons for the government’s bill allowing ministers to trigger article 50 and thus begin the formal process of Brexit. This week there are three days scheduled to cover the third reading and committee stages.

This is the period when amendments are debated, and there are many dozens of them tabled. Today is more focused on amendments connected to process, with the more fundamental ones – notably on the rights of EU citizens in the UK, and whether parliament gets a final say over the eventual Brexit deal – coming tomorrow.

But today should see signs of whether any Conservative MPs are mustering a rebellion on either of those issues, especially now the government has indicated it is not minded to back down unilaterally.

Before all that, Theresa May is due to host the Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, at Downing street for a morning meeting and working lunch.

After Donald Trump and the Turkish PM, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, Netanyahu is the third somewhat divisive world leader May will have met in little more than a week. Expect some occasionally tense talk focused on Iran and on new Israeli settlement building.

Don’t, however, expect a press conference, as there is not one planned. This is becoming something of a habit for May, who also dodged the media almost entirely at Friday’s EU summit in Malta.

Do comment below, and I’ll look out as best I can. Or you can contact me on Twitter - @peterwalker

Sign up to read this article
Read news from 100’s of titles, curated specifically for you.
Already a member? Sign in here
Related Stories
Top stories on inkl right now
One subscription that gives you access to news from hundreds of sites
Already a member? Sign in here
Our Picks
81 Chucklesome Cat Memes That Combine The Two Things The Internet Loves The Most
Cat memes are everywhere — the internet just can’t get enough of these little furballs. From the eternally unimpressed Grumpy Cat perfectly capturing everyday moods to the iconic dinner-table side-eye from Smudge the Cat, these feline reactions somehow sum up life a little too well. Scroll ahead for a fresh…
Bored Panda
Bored Panda
Lady Gaga, Michael Polansky Wedding: Songstress Shares Surprising Update Two Years After Engagement
Lady Gaga revealed during a TikTok Live call with Bruno Mars that she and Michael Polansky plan to marry soon, offering her most direct update since their engagement. The couple continue to guard wedding details despite growing interest from fans.
International Business Times UK
International Business Times UK
Ryan Seacrest Sparks Illness Rumours Due to Extreme Weight Loss Possibly Caused by Ozempic
Ryan Seacrest's recent weight loss has led to speculation about his use of Ozempic, a medication known for aiding weight loss. Fans express concern over his health.
International Business Times UK
International Business Times UK
Private Chef Spills On Timothée Chalamet’s Bizarre Breakfast Demands
Timothée Chalamet faced online mockery after a co-star revealed his chef prepared three different breakfasts daily.
Bored Panda
Bored Panda
Is It AI? Tom Holland And Zendaya Viral 'Wedding' Picture Explodes Online, Surging Past 10 Million Likes On Instagram
An AI-generated image of Tom Holland and Zendaya's 'wedding' has gone viral, highlighting the challenges of distinguishing reality from fiction in celebrity culture.
International Business Times UK
International Business Times UK
Did Kai Cenat officially come out as gay on Instagram as viral X post claims? Debunking the viral rumor
A viral post on X claimed that Kai Cenat officially came out as gay through an Instagram post. The claim spread widely and gained millions of views. However, the screenshot appears to be fake, and Kai Cenat has not posted anything like that on his official Instagram account. Recent rumors…
The Times of India
The Times of India
Fourteen days free
Download the app
One app. One membership.
100+ trusted global sources.
Download on the AppStore Get it on Google Play