Afternoon summary
- Ken Livingstone has said that he “can’t see what all the fuss is about” after Jeremy Corbyn revealed that he could face further disciplinary action from the Labour party. In a statement Corbyn said it was “deeply disappointing” that Livingstone would not acknowledge the offence his comments about Hitler and Zionism have caused to the Jewish community. A Labour panel decided yesterday to suspend Livingstone from the party for another year, but Corbyn said Livingstone’s ongoing “offensive remarks” meant there could be further disciplinary action. (See 2.29pm.) In interviews this afternoon Livingstone has said he was just telling the truth. Speaking on LBC, he claimed that an article in the Jewish News had defended him, adding: “I can’t see what all the fuss is about.”
That’s all from me for today.
Thanks for the comments.
Livingstone says some conspiracy theorists have floated the theory that the rightwing Labour party machine delayed the disciplinary hearing into his case until this month because they wanted it to damage the party at the start of the local election campaign.
Ken Livingstone is now speaking to BBC News. He is making the same points he made in his interview with LBC.
Q: What is your message to Labour members who are thinking of leaving?
Livingstone says they should look at the Holocaust Memorial website, or the Chicago university history website, where the truth is set out. Or they could read Jewish News, which defended him last week.
Q: I like you, but find it sad that you cannot see the problem.
Livingstone says he is just telling the truth.
And that’s it.
Dale quotes from some of the things Livingstone has said about Jews, including Livingstone saying, when asked what he would do for them, they could look after themselves.
Livingstone says antisemitic attacks went down when he was London mayor.
Q: Do you feel upset that people are leaving Labour because of you.
Livingstone says he will believe it when he sees it.
Q: But it is happening.
Livingstone says they should look at the evidence.
Q: You have mentioned Hitler eight times already in this interview.
Livingstone says he only mentions Hitler when asked about him.
Livingstone says he came into politics to tell the truth. He says he is not part of the New Labour history of dissembling.
He says no Jew in Israel should be embarrassed by what Jews did 80 years ago. Lives were saved, he says.
Q: So you have no regrets about the original Vanessa Feltz interview?
He says he would rather have avoided this, because this has gone on for 11 months.
Q: What do you say to Labour people who are thinking of resigning because of what you have done?
Livingstone says he can only tell the truth.
Livingstone is speaking on a mobile phone. He says he has just arrived home after walking the dog. ITV is there to speak to him, he says, and other broadcasters are coming too.
Q: Naz Shah admitted what she said was antisemitic. If she can admit that, why are you defending her?
Livingstone says he was telling the truth. He says Shah retweeted things from Norman Finkelstein and from Martin Luther King. Neither of them are antisemitic.
He says the Guido Fawkes website has been whipping this up.
Q: Who are these forces in the Labour party putting pressure on Corbyn?
Livingstone says he does not know. He is not allowed to have contact with Labour people because he has been suspended.
Q: Isn’t a rule in politics knowing when to shut up?
Livingstone says not, the key thing is to tell the truth.
He says the national constitutional committee panel was set up to throw Livingstone out. But when they considered, they realised they could not do that because it would be overturned in the courts.
Q: Do you feel betrayed by Corbyn?
No, says Livingstone. He says Livingstone has been under pressure over this.
Q: Who has forced him to issue this statement?
Livingstone says Corbyn has been under pressure from Labour MPs and from the chief rabbi.
Livingstone insists he is unrepentant, saying he 'cannot see what the fuss is about'
Iain Dale starts by reading out Jeremy Corbyn’s statement.
Q: Have you brought shame on Labour?
Not at all, says Ken Livingstone. He says the Jewish News last week ran an article saying Livingstone should not be expelled and that he had performed a service telling people about the Holocaust. He says he cannot see what the fuss is about.
- Livingstone insists he is unrepentant, saying he “cannot see what the fuss is about”.
Ken Livingstone's LBC interview
Iain Dale will be interviewing Ken Livingstone on LBC within the next few minutes.
Lord Mandelson's Brexit talk - Summary
Here are some of the key quotes from Lord Mandelson’s Brexit talk at the Institute for Government earlier.
- Mandelson said Theresa May should resist the “wild men” in her party.
The wild men of her party have already started to agitate against expecting any such terms which they think would amount to a bad deal ...
If she gives in, in my view, to the wild men and to the right of her party, I think she will only have herself to blame when the awful reality of our position dawns. And it will. There will then be no blaming the remainers by her, no blaming the remoaners, or the EU. She will have brought this on herself if she gives in at any stage in this negotiation to these people in her party.
- He said that adopting an approach that would damage the UK as a negotiating strategy (leaving the EU without a trade deal) would be “a sign of insanity”.
To those who say we have to countenance no deal as a negotiating tactic, I would just say that threatening to shoot yourself in both feet is really not a credible negotiating tactic. It is, instead, a sign of insanity. Threatening the EU on security cooperation has already got us nowhere – indeed it’s gone down very badly.
- He said remain supporters should wish May well in the Brexit negotiations.
I think it would be very churlish of those, like me, in the remain camp, not to wish her well, even though – I think and I feel this passionately – that a free trade agreement is a clear second best to staying fully in the single market.
In effect I am saying that the leave people should not tie her hands during this negotiation, and those of us in the remain camp should back her up in the negotiation without of course giving blanket support for any outcome.
- He said May should not give people unrealistic expectations.
The one thing also she shouldn’t do with the British public is feed them unrealistic expectations. This idea that Britain can have its cake and eat it in this, all that’s going to do is to dash expectations when people find they can’t have their cake and eat it. There will be a public backlash then, and a further erosion of trust in politicians and in the government.
- He said that the EU “exit bill” would be “small change” in relative terms and that the UK should agree to pay it quickly.
I would just settle the tab, pay the money, do it as quickly as possible. It’s not going to be a vast sum of money – it will be a vast sum of money but as a percentage of our public spending, our GDP of this country, given that it’s going to be paid over very many years, it’s small change. And I would deal with the small change of the financial settlement in the first negotiation, as quickly as you can, to the second stage of the negotiation, which is about the future trade arrangements.
- He said the rightwing media barons have May “in a form of lockdown”.
I think the press, as everyone knows, are motivated and driven by that cabal of the Barclay brothers in their splendid isolation in their castle in the Channel Islands, trying to steer Brexit onto the rocks; by Paul Dacre of the Daily Mail, who has an ideological fixation as well as a very venal temperament; Rupert Murdoch, of course, from either California or New York, trying to pull the strings of Britain’s future as well. Between the four of them I don’t think there’s any likelihood of their changing their mood or their tenor. They are on the prime minister’s case. To date they’ve had her in a form of lockdown.
- He said the choice facing people in an election now would be “ghastly”.
I mean, what on earth would the country do, in a choice between hard Brexit and the hard left? God, is this is what politics in this country has come to? It’s too ghastly.
Updated
Ken Livingstone will be on LBC at 4pm.
Ken Livingstone is live with @IainDale at 4pm on LBC. You can hear it all here as it happens: https://t.co/4zu41YcSJD pic.twitter.com/mqSrmSGAGq
— LBC (@LBC) April 5, 2017
Updated
10 'red lines' in the European parliament's Brexit guidelines which cause difficulties for the UK
The Brexit negotiating guidelines agreed by the European parliament this morning are not binding. What will matter most will be the guidelines agreed by EU leaders at the summit that Donald Tusk, the president of the European council, has called for Saturday 29 April.
But the MEPs’ guidelines will be influential. Any final Brexit deal needs the approval of the European parliament and, although the prospect of the parliament blocking a deal seems very remote, the threat of such a veto may give MEPs some leverage. And it is significant that the guidelines have the backing of all the pro-EU groups in the parliament.
Tusk will finalise the EU’s negotiating guidelines at the end of this month but he released draft guidelines on Friday last week. You can read them in full here. The parliament’s guidelines, which you can read here, overlap with Tusk’s in many respects. But they are also more detailed and, in several respects, noticeably “tougher” than Tusk’s. The 560-133 vote in favour of them in Luxembourg this morning will not make Theresa May’s task any easier.
Here are 10 key points from the parliament’s guidelines, with notes showing how they differ from the Tusk guidelines.
1 - The UK must not be offered a deal that offers all the advantages of single market membership.
[The parliament] regrets the decision by the United Kingdom government not to participate in the internal market, the European Economic Area or the customs union; considers that a state withdrawing from the union cannot enjoy similar benefits to those enjoyed by a union member state, and therefore announces that it will not consent to any agreement that would contradict this.
Note: This is a key principle, and the Tusk guidelines says something very similar.
2 - Talks on a future UK-EU trade deal should not start until “substantial progress” has been made in the talks on the withdrawal deal.
Note: This is a flashpoint, because the UK wants the exit talks and the trade talks to run in parallel. The Tusk guidelines say much the same, although they talk about the need for “sufficient progress” on withdrawal before trade talks can start. The parliament’s threshold (“substantial”) is higher.
3 - The UK-EU trade deal can only be concluded after the UK has left the EU.
Note: The Tusk guidelines say the same. The UK government has now accepted this, dashing Theresa May’s hopes of finalising a trade deal within two years.
4 - The European court of justice must be “the competent authority for the interpretation and enforcement of the withdrawal agreement”.
Note: This is more specific than the Tusk guidelines, which say “the withdrawal agreement should include appropriate dispute settlement mechanisms”, implying the ECJ might not be the court that polices the deal.
5 - Britain must pay an exit bill.
[The parliament] stresses that a single financial settlement with the United Kingdom on the basis of the European Union’s annual accounts as audited by the European Court of Auditors must include all its legal liabilities arising from outstanding commitments as well as making provision for off-balance sheet items, contingent liabilities and other financial costs arising directly as a result of the United Kingdom’s withdrawal.
Note: The Tusk guidelines are similar, but they do not include the line about the UK’s bill including “other financial costs arising directly as a result of the United Kingdom’s withdrawal”, which implies perhaps that the parliament favours a more stringent approach to calculating the UK’s liabilities.
6 - Any future UK-EU trade deal must not allow the UK to cut standards.
[The parliament] stresses that any future agreement between the European Union and the United Kingdom is conditional on the United Kingdom’s continued adherence to the standards provided by international obligations, including human rights, and the Union’s legislation and policies, in, among others, the fields of the environment, climate change, the fight against tax evasion and avoidance, fair competition, trade and social rights, especially safeguards against social dumping.
Note: The Tusk guidelines are very similar. This condition is key, because it suggests that MPs who want Brexit to lead to a bonfire of regulation will find this incompatible with a UK-EU trade deal.
7 - Any future UK-EU trade deal must not contain special “sectoral provision” for certain parts of the economy.
[The parliament] opposes any future agreement between the European Union and the United Kingdom that would contain piecemeal or sectorial provisions, including with respect to financial services, providing United Kingdom-based undertakings with preferential access to the internal market and/or the customs union.
Note: The Tusk guidelines rule out the UK participating in the single market “on a sector-by-sector approach”, but the parliament’s go further, significantly ruling out a special deal for City. In her Lancaster House speech May floated the idea of the UK being able to keep single market arrangements in areas like the car sector or banking. These guidelines rule that out.
8 - European court of justice rulings should continue to apply to the UK during any transition period.
Note: The Tusk guidelines essentially say the same, although they are not quite as specific.
9 - Any transitional period should last for no longer than three years.
Note: This more specific than the Tusk guidelines, which say any transitional arrangements should be “time-limited” but do not say for how long.
10 - If the UK starts trade negotiations with other countries before Brexit, that will be against EU rules.
It would be contrary to union law for the United Kingdom to begin, in advance of its withdrawal, negotiations on possible trade agreements with third countries.
Note: This is just a statement of EU law (although at what point informal talks, of the kind Liam Fox has been having with foreign trade ministers, becomes a “negotiation” is not clear). But the parliament’s decision to include it reads like a warning.
Corbyn urges Livingstone to 'keep quiet for a while'
Jeremy Corbyn has been speaking to regional lobby journalists. These are from the Eastern Daily Press’s Annabelle Dickson.
Regional lobby has just had a sit down with Jeremy Corbyn. Key quote on Ken Livingstone @EDP24 @EADT24 pic.twitter.com/w736k2NhWK
— Annabelle Dickson (@NewsAnnabelle) April 5, 2017
Later pushed on whether KL should be involved in local council elections, JC said: "I think with Ken it is best he keeps quiet for a while.”
— Annabelle Dickson (@NewsAnnabelle) April 5, 2017
Here is a Guardian video with some of Ken Livingstone’s controversial comments about Hitler and Zionism.
Earlier today, before Jeremy Corbyn issued his statement, the Labour MP Tulip Siddiq, who represents Hampstead and Kilburn, wrote to him asking him to convene an emergency meeting of the party’s national executive committee to consider the decision not to expel Ken Livingstone. In the letter she said:
I believe this decision to be intolerable and to bring great shame on our party. What should have been an open-shut disciplinary case has become a year-long insult to a community that I am so proud to represent.
As a teenager, I joined the party whilst living in the heart of the Jewish community in Hampstead. For that community and for Jews across the country, last night’s outcome was desperately disappointing, as it was for all those dedicated to anti-racism in our movement.
Members have contacted me in despair over the past twelve hours. They have seen this as the final straw and have terminated their membership. I believe that many more will do so unless we act swiftly.
I am writing to you personally, because I do not believe you wish to lead a party where manipulations of the Holocaust are allowed to stand. I believe the insufficiency of the punishment means that the party must explore all options available to it. This includes asking the NEC to convene an emergency session to review the decision.
I hope you can give immediate consideration to this and any other steps that will move to repair trust with the Jewish community.
In his statement (see 2.29pm) Jeremy Corbyn did not specify what Ken Livingstone’s continuing “offensive remarks” where that will be consider by Labour’s national executive committee, opening up the possibility of another disciplinary hearing, and possibly Livingstone this time being expelled.
But it is understood that the hearing that ended yesterday only considered Livingstone’s conduct up until last summer.
Since then he has continued to give interviews defending his original comments about Hitler and Zionism, some of which are thought by his critics to be almost as inflammatory as the original remarks.
On Thursday last week, as he was going in to the opening of his disciplinary hearing, Livingstone said there had been at one point “real collaboration” between the Nazis and Jews. He said:
[Hitler] didn’t just sign the deal. The SS set up training camps so that German Jews who were going to go there could be trained to cope with a very different sort of country when they got there. When the Zionist movement asked, would the Nazi government stop a Jewish rabbi doing their sermons in Yiddish and make them do it in Hebrew, he agreed to that.
He passed a law saying the Zionist flag and the swastika were the only flags that could be flown in Germany. An awful lot. Of course, they started selling Mauser pistols to the underground Jewish army. So you had right up until the start of the second world war real collaboration.
And after last night’s hearing ended he told reporters:
If I’d said Hitler was a Zionist, I would say sorry. You can’t apologise for telling the truth. I apologise for the offence caused by those Labour MPs who lied. In the weeks after I was suspended I had hundreds of people stopping me in the street saying, ‘Don’t give in.’
Corbyn says Livingstone could face further disciplinary action for ongoing 'offensive' remarks
Jeremy Corbyn has issued a statement about Ken Livingstone. And he confirmed that Labour’s national executive committee may take further action against Livingstone because of the comments he made last night after it was announced he was being suspended for another year. Corbyn said:
Ken Livingstone’s comments have been grossly insensitive, and he has caused deep offence and hurt to the Jewish community.
Labour’s independently elected national constitutional committee has found Ken guilty of bringing the party into disrepute and suspended him for two years.
It is deeply disappointing that, despite his long record of standing up to racism, Ken has failed to acknowledge or apologise for the hurt he has caused. Many people are understandably upset that he has continued to make offensive remarks which could open him to further disciplinary action.
Since initiating the disciplinary process, I have not interfered with it and respect the independence of the party’s disciplinary bodies. But Ken’s subsequent comments and actions will now be considered by the national executive committee after representations from party members.
Mandelson says threatening self-harm in a negotiation is 'sign of insanity'
Here are some of the highlights so far from Lord Mandelson’s event at the Institute for Government. These are from PoliticsHome’s John Ashmore.
Mandelson: May has made 2 'absolutely pivotal' choices.
— John Ashmore (@smashmorePH) April 5, 2017
1 - leaving single market
2 - series of negotiating 'red lines'#IFGMandelson
Mandelson: May has "an existential choice" between "economic reality" and "political intransigence"#IFGMandelson
— John Ashmore (@smashmorePH) April 5, 2017
Mandelson says UK will have to remain under ECJ jurisdiction during any transitional phase #IFGMandelson
— John Ashmore (@smashmorePH) April 5, 2017
Mandelson points out that the EU wants a "level playing field" in many areas, meaning carrying on subject to ECJ or equivalent jurisdiction
— John Ashmore (@smashmorePH) April 5, 2017
"I don't think leaving without a trade deal in prospect would get parliamentary approval." #IFGMandelson
— John Ashmore (@smashmorePH) April 5, 2017
"Threatening to shoot yourself in both feet is really not a credible negotiating tactic, it is instead a sign of insanity" #IFGMandelson
— John Ashmore (@smashmorePH) April 5, 2017
"It is the moral duty of Brexiters in the Cabinet to challenge those who say 'no deal' would be fine." #IFGMandelson
— John Ashmore (@smashmorePH) April 5, 2017
Mandelson insists the "wild men" do all seem to be men. Someone points to Andrea Leadsom - "Is she still in the Cabinet?" #IFGMandelson
— John Ashmore (@smashmorePH) April 5, 2017
Mandelson says May "shouldn't feed the public unrealistic expectations", it will create a "public backlash" down the line
— John Ashmore (@smashmorePH) April 5, 2017
Mandelson says the Brexit divorce bill will be "small change" as a percentage of UK GDP #IFGMandelson
— John Ashmore (@smashmorePH) April 5, 2017
"I wouldn't wish negotiating with the European Commission on my worst enemy, it's going to be tough." #IFGMandelson
— John Ashmore (@smashmorePH) April 5, 2017
Mandelson says Theresa May should face down ‘wild men’ in Tory party opposed to trade deal with EU
Lord Mandelson, the former Labour business secretary and former European trade commissioner, will be speaking about Brexit at at Institute for Government event at lunchtime.
According to a briefing from Open Britain, which is campaigning for a “soft” Brexit, he will urge Theresa May to face down the “wild men” in the Conservative party who are trying to stop the UK forming a trade deal with the EU. Open Britain said:
Peter Mandelson, leading supporter of Open Britain, will challenge Theresa May to face down the “wild men” in her party who are actively working to sabotage the negotiation of a UK trade deal with the EU because they want a complete break from the EU, whatever the economic cost.
The position of these “cheerleaders for Brexit at any cost” was revealed in their minority opposition to the select committee report this week and their support for Boris Johnson’s view that “no trade deal would be perfectly OK”. They have no concern for the damage this would do to the economy. They have become “ultras” in the Brexit process and are taking the government further and further away from a sensible negotiation in which the prime minister uses maximum political flexibility to achieve a good trade deal for Britain.
Mandelson will say that of course a politically cosmetic deal will be economically worthless and should not be supported but that the EU has now provided a route to a meaningful trade deal, that we should meet the EU half way in achieving this, that this will involve compromise by Britain on EU rules and that the economic benefits of a full deal will justify this.
In these circumstances, Mandelson will say that it would be “churlish” of remainers like him who campaigned for Britain to stay in the EU not to support prime minister’s desire to stand up for the national interest, as long as she is prepared to stand up to the “ultras” and free herself of the constraints they are trying to impose on her.
- Mandelson says Theresa May should face down ‘wild men’ in Tory party opposed to a trade deal with the EU.
- He says remainers like him should support May in her bid to get a deal if she will compromise with the EU and ignore the “ultras” trying to tie her hands.
Ireland got prominent mention in the Guy Verhofstadt press conference after the vote and a promise that there will be no hard border will be a boon to border businesses desperately worried about their future.
Asked by an RTE reporter how difficult it would be to achieve the desire for no border controls, Verhofstadt said: “It will be very difficult and it will be very high on the priority list: no hard border, respect in all its aspects of the Good Friday agreement.”
Notably he added: “It is the EU 27 who have to taken on board the [interests] of the Irish Republic, binding the Dublin vote closer to Brussels.”
In a considerable coup for Ireland, the border issue is at the top of the priority list.
The European parliament president Antonio Tajani also mentioned its predicament saying that the Good Friday Agreement, like the EU four freedoms, must not be touched.
He was also asked whether action would be taken against Nigel Farage for his comment in the debate about the EU acting like the mafia, or gangsters. (See 9.02am.)
A slightly contemptuous looking Tajani said Farage needed to show respect to democratic structures. “We don’t have here mafia [or] gangsters,” he said.
Here is my colleague Daniel Boffey’s story on the vote.
EU must take 'very firm' approach to UK in Brexit talks, says European parliament's Brexit chief
At his news conference Guy Verhofstadt, the European parliament’s Brexit negotiator, said the guidelines passed by MEPs set out clearly what the parliament’s red lines were.
MEPs want the EU to take a “very firm” approach to the UK in the talks, he said.
It is very clear what the message of the parliament is. We ask [the European commission] to be very firm towards the UK authorities because we cannot accept that a state outside the union [gets] more favourable [treatment than one inside].
But, on the other hand, you see in the resolution that we are very generous, open, positive towards UK citizens. That is clear in a number of points. First of all, we want the problem of residents solved immediately.
Guy Verhofstadt, the European parliament’s Brexit negotiator, is speaking now about the vote in the parliament at a news conference. He is with Antonio Tajani, president of the European parliament.
Verhofstadt says the EU must be “very firm” towards the UK, with regard to it not being able to have all the advantages of the single market if it leaves.
But he says the EU also wants to be very generous to British citizens.
Q: What is the exit bill for the UK? Is it £50bn?
Verhofstadt says the parliament does not want to start with a figure. Instead, it wants to start with the principles to be used to decide the amount owed.
Updated
Before MEPs took the final vote on the Brexit negotiating guidelines (see 11.32am), they voted on a whole series of amendments. The Ukip MEP Jonathan Arnott has been tweeting about the votes on the Ukip ones.
We believe that the UK has the legal right to begin negotiations towards a trade agreement with third countries & that's our first amendment
— Jonathan Arnott MEP (@JonathanArnott) April 5, 2017
Conservatives abstain; Labour vote against and it's rejected by 73-537.
— Jonathan Arnott MEP (@JonathanArnott) April 5, 2017
Next up, the parliament wants to break Article 50 by suggesting we have post-Brexit legal obligations financially. It passes.
— Jonathan Arnott MEP (@JonathanArnott) April 5, 2017
Our amendment points out that if treaties no longer apply under article 50(3) then regulations made under those treaties can't apply. Fails.
— Jonathan Arnott MEP (@JonathanArnott) April 5, 2017
Two more UKIP amendments on free trade fail, which were pointing out the obvious.
— Jonathan Arnott MEP (@JonathanArnott) April 5, 2017
Our amendment rejecting the idea of a 'divorce bill' fails: Labour and Conservatives vote against.
— Jonathan Arnott MEP (@JonathanArnott) April 5, 2017
Our amendment to protect sovereignty of Gibraltar fails by 139-496.
— Jonathan Arnott MEP (@JonathanArnott) April 5, 2017
Our amendment to say any EU agreement must end unlimited immigration from the EU fails. The EU can't force us to accept it though!
— Jonathan Arnott MEP (@JonathanArnott) April 5, 2017
Next up is our amendment to protect British fisheries. Rejected by 90-524.
— Jonathan Arnott MEP (@JonathanArnott) April 5, 2017
At least the Conservatives vote in favour of our amendment saying that EU courts must no longer overrule our courts. Labour don't; it fails.
— Jonathan Arnott MEP (@JonathanArnott) April 5, 2017
Our last amendment recalls that Leave won on basis of controlling immigration and ending budgetary contributions to EU; fails 69-601.
— Jonathan Arnott MEP (@JonathanArnott) April 5, 2017
The pernicious resolution as a whole passes by a whopping 516-133.
— Jonathan Arnott MEP (@JonathanArnott) April 5, 2017
According to the Jewish Chronicle, some Labour MPs are planning to write to the party’s national executive committee asking for a review of the decision not to expel Ken Livingstone.
MEPs vote in favour of Brexit negotiation guidelines
MEPs have now voted to accept the Brexit negotiating guidelines drafted by the main parties. They backed them by 560 votes to 133, a majority of 427.
You can read the guidelines here.
This is from the parliament’s communications chief, Jaume Duch.
That's what we call a "constitutional majority". Strong support to the EP mandate on Brexit negotiation. pic.twitter.com/CxhZ2Qb7Qq
— Jaume Duch (@jduch) April 5, 2017
Sadiq Khan says Labour's decision not to expel Livingstone 'deeply disappointing'
Sadiq Khan, the Labour mayor of London, has issued his own statement on the party’s decision not to expel Ken Livingstone. It was “deeply disappointing”, he says.
There should be no place for anti-Semitism in the Labour party or anywhere else.
The Labour party disciplinary panel’s decision to suspend Ken Livingstone but let him remain a member does not reflect the severity of the verdict – this is deeply disappointing.
As the Labour party it is our duty to lead by example and demonstrate that we take a zero-tolerance approach towards anti-Semitism wherever we find it.
Sadly this gives the impression we are not fulfilling that duty.
Labour must be committed to tackling racism in any form.
Tom Brake, the Lib Dem foreign affairs spokesman, has responded to Nigel Farage’s claim that the EU is acting like “the mafia” in the Brexit talks. (See 9.02am.) In a statement he said:
The real Brexit criminals are those who misled the British people during the referendum.
Many of us warned that the negotiations would be extremely tough, with Britain alone seeking a deal from 27 united countries. Yet Farage and his Brexit friends in the Conservative Party promised the British people that it would be a breeze, that we would have a trade deal signed in time for tea.
Sir Keir Starmer, the shadow Brexit secretary, has joined those shadow cabinet members saying Ken Livingstone should have been expelled. This is from Justin Cohen, news editor on Jewish News.
.@Keir_Starmer tells @JewishNewsUK Livingstone should have been expelled. 'There can be no place for this in our party' pic.twitter.com/rm4f0zhgU6
— Justin Cohen (@CohenJust) April 5, 2017
Jon Ashworth, the shadow health secretary, and Barry Gardiner, the shadow international trade secretary, have also criticised Labour’s national constitutional committee for being too lenient to Livingstone.
David Miliband, the Labour former foreign secretary, has told Radio 5 Live that what is happening to his party is “unspeakable”. In an interview broadcast this morning, but recorded before the party announced the decision to suspend but not to expel Ken Livingstone last night, Miliband, who now works in America as head of the International Rescue Committee aid organisation, said:
One of the reasons I grieve for the state of the labour party is I never believed we would see the day when anti-semitism and labour were being discussed in the same sentence. That is an unspeakable state of affairs. I think that every single person in the labour party needs to be absolutely clear that there should never be a day when those words anti-semitism and Labour end up in the same sentence.
Asked how he would respond if Jeremy Corbyn invited him to return to British politics and take a job in his team, Miliband replied: “I think that is the stuff of Jeremy Corbyn’s nightmares, not stuff of his dreams.”
Miliband went on:
The big thing in politics is not to define your own reality and then fits the facts to it. It’s to look at the world in a clear way and apply your values. Obviously the great fear for Labour supporters is the public perceive us to be going backwards ... My quarrel is not with Jeremy Corbyn’s personality, it’s with the strategy.
Farage says he is “not optimistic” about the Brexit talks
This is what Nigel Farage, the former Ukip leader, told LBC as he left the chamber in Strasbourg where MEPs are debating Brexit. He said that the speech by Michel Barnier, the European commission’s Brexit negotiator, left him with “not too much to be optimistic about”.
Well, that was everything I expected: Mr Barnier, who is the commission’s chief negotiator, making it absolutely clear that he thinks the £52bn [apparently owed by the UK to the EU] is simply our settling the accounts; that they won’t even discuss a trade deal with us until, basically, we’ve paid the ransom, as I see it; and thereafter any trade deal we could not have competitive advantage, that they are going to try and keep us effectively within the framework of the single market. I would say, at the beginning [of the talks process], not too much to be optimistic about.
- Farage says he is “not optimistic” about the Brexit talks.
And here is a Guardian video of Farage himself addressing the European parliament.
Tom Watson says Labour's decision not to expel Livingstone 'incomprehensible'
Turning away from the European parliament debate, Tom Watson, the deputy Labour leader, has released an extraordinary statement about the party’s decision not to expel Ken Livingstone. He says it is “incomprehensible”. Here it is in full.
I find it incomprehensible that our elected lay members on the disciplinary panel found Ken Livingstone guilty of such serious charges, and then concluded that he can remain a member of the Labour party.
When I read the words of chief rabbi Mirvis, who says that ‘the Labour party has failed the Jewish community, it has failed its members and it has failed all those who believe in zero tolerance of anti-semitism’, I can’t disagree with him. I wish I could, but I can’t. I am ashamed that we have allowed Mr Livingstone to cause such distress.
It isn’t just Jewish people who feel disgusted and offended by what Mr Livingstone said and by the way he has conducted himself over this matter, and it isn’t just Jewish Labour members who feel ashamed of any indulgence of his views anywhere in the Labour party. This shames us all, and I’m deeply saddened by it.
Mr Livingstone’s unrepentant media appearances in recent days have continued to discredit the party I love. His current behaviour is still bringing the Labour party into disrepute. It is hard not to conclude that his use of inflammatory language to dismiss the fully justified outrage of the Jewish community and others will incite further distortions of the Holocaust in our public discourse.
My party is not living up to its commitment to have a zero tolerance approach to anti-semitism. I will continue the fight to ensure that it does, and I will press my colleagues to do so too.
Updated
According to Bruno Waterfield, the two best speeches this morning have been Guy Verhofstadt’s and Helga Stevens. Stevens, a Belgian MEP, is vice chair of the European Conservatives and Reformists group.
'This should not be a nasty break up.' Our Vice-Chair @StevensHelga in today's @Europarl_EN #BREXIT debate. pic.twitter.com/kWS3kYZrHq
— ECR Group (@ecrgroup) April 5, 2017
Here is a clip from Jean-Claude Juncker’s speech.
No negotiation without representation. @Europarl_EN will have a final say on any deal. @JunckerEU #Article50 #Brexit pic.twitter.com/Rgl0v9cuSW
— European Commission (@EU_Commission) April 5, 2017
Brexit is 'catfight in Conservative party that got out of hand', says Verhofstadt
And here is an extract from Guy Verhofstadt’s speech.
Perhaps it was always impossible to unite Great Britain with the continent. Naive to reconcile the legal system of Napoleon with the common law of the British empire. Perhaps it was never meant to be.
But, our predecessors should never be blamed for having tried. Never. It’s as important in politics as it is in life: to try; new partnerships, new horizons, to reach out to each other, the other side of the Channel. I am also sure that - one day or another - there will be a young man or woman who will try again, who will lead Britain into the European family once again. A young generation that will see Brexit for what it really is: a catfight in the Conservative party that got out of hand, a loss of time, a waste of energy, stupidity.
Let’s not forget: Britain entered the union as the ‘sick man of Europe’ and - thanks to the single market - came out of the other side. Europe made Britain also punch above its weight in terms of geopolitics, as in the heydays of the British empire. And we from our side must pay tribute to Britain’s immense contributions: a staunch, unmatched defender of free markets and civil liberties. Thank you for that. As a liberal, I tell you, I will miss that.
Guy Verhofstadt, the European parliament’s Brexit negotiator, spoke earlier in the debate. He has posted his speech on Twitter.
This morning, I paid tribute to the UK's immense contribution to Europe and presented the way forward for us, the 27. Here's the full speech pic.twitter.com/GlyrXApZ5v
— Guy Verhofstadt (@GuyVerhofstadt) April 5, 2017
His speech is being widely praised, including by some unexpected figures.
From the Ukip MEP Patrick O’Flynn
Strange to report that Guy Verhofstadt has made by far the most thoughtful speech so far in Europarl Brexit debate.
— Patrick O'Flynn (@oflynnmep) April 5, 2017
From the Conservative MEP Daniel Hannan
.@IBTimesUK A measured speech from @GuyVerhofstadt. The incompatibility of Napoleonic and common law, he says, may have made the breach inevitable.
— Daniel Hannan (@DanielJHannan) April 5, 2017
From the Times’ Bruno Waterfield
Has to be said, @GuyVerhofstadt towers above the others. Good speech, history not nit-picking
— Bruno Waterfield (@BrunoBrussels) April 5, 2017
Barnier says he will be working together with the parliament.
It is a pleasure to address MEPs, he says, concluding his speech.
Barnier turns to his third condition: phasing the talks.
Barnier says the UK is pushing for parallel negotiations (ie, negotiating the exit deal at the same time as a future trade deal).
He says this approach would be “very risky”.
He says the EU should agree the terms of Brexit before moving on to the future trade talks.
The UK letter makes clear that the UK government will push for parallel negotiations on the withdrawal and the future relations.
This is a very risky approach. To succeed we need, on the contrary, to devote the first phase of the negotiation to reaching an agreement on the principles of exit. We are not proposing this to be tactical or to create difficulties for the UK.
On the contrary, it is an essential condition to maximise the chance of reaching an agreement together in two years, which is very short. It is also our best chance to build trust. To build trust before proceeding to the second phase of negotiations.
Updated
Barnier says asking UK for money is just 'settling the accounts - no more, no less'
Barnier says Theresa May wants a rapid agreement.
But the devil will be in the detail, he says.
He says Juncker has said the European parliament will have to be vigilant in the process.
A single financial settlement, as a result of the EU’s commitment to the UK and the UK’s commitment to the EU, is a clear requirement, he says.
He says the EU is not trying to punish the UK.
Addressing Farage, he says “all we are doing is settling the accounts - no more, no less”.
- Barnier says asking UK for money is just “settling the accounts - no more, no less”.
Updated
Barnier says he will be defending EU law until the day of withdrawal. There must be certainty, he says. He says this is his second condition for successful talks.
Updated
Barnier says negotiations will be 'transparent', not 'secret'
Barnier says the EU must speak the truth to citizens about what Brexit means.
The negotiations must also have a pedagogical dimension, he says.
He says the negotiation must allow the EU to rediscover what it has achieved.
He says unity must be public.
And he intends to negotiate “in a transparent fashion”, he says.
- Barnier says negotiations will be “transparent”, not “secret”.
Barnier says, if EU does not stay united, there could be no Brexit deal
Barnier says, for a successful negotiation, three conditions, will have to be met.
First, the EU must defend its values.
Unity is necessary for the union, but also for the UK, he says.
A disunited union could lead to there being no agreement.
- Barnier says, if EU does not stay united, there could be no Brexit deal.
But he says the EU wants a deal.
Michel Barnier's speech
Michel Barnier, the European commission’s chief Brexit negotiator, is speaking now.
He says the parliament’s resolution will be the first political response by an EU institution to Theresa May’s article 50 letter.
Jean-Claude Juncker, the president of the European commission, is speaking now.
He says disorderly separation would be the worst possible outcome.
If there were no deal, everyone would lose, he says.
He says the EU will miss the UK. But he does not want to be naive.
Addressing Nigel Farage, he says it is not the EU that is leaving the UK. It is the UK that is leaving the EU.
Divorce lawyers, primarily Michel Barnier, will be looking into the details.
He says they can only talk about the future when questions of the past are fully resolved.
He says the UK decision goes against the march of history.
He says all those who have marched in favour of Europe remind him of the founding fathers of the union. And he says that with some emotion, he says.
He says history will judge then not just by what they have done, but by what they leave for future generations.
You can watch a live feed of the debate in the European parliament here.
Nigel Farage tells MEPs EU acting 'like the mafia' and making impossible Brexit demands
This morning MEPs are debating their negotiating guidelines for the Brexit talks. The parliament is not in charge of the negotiations - the commission, and its lead Brexit negotiator, Michel Barnier, are taking the lead on the EU side - but the parliament has a role because it has to approve the final deal. The debate has been running for more than an hour now, but MEPs have just heard from Nigel Farage, the former Ukip leader and chair of the Europe of Freedom and Direct Democracy group in the parliament. And he accused EU leaders of acting like the mafia.
I’m sorry to say that the response to the triggering of article 50 has been all too predictable. Already you have made a series of demands that are not just unreasonable but, in some cases, clearly impossible for Britain to comply with. You began by telling us that we have to pay a bill, a cool £52bn, a figure that has clearly been plucked out of the air, effectively a form of ransom demand ....
You are behaving like the mafia. You think we are a hostage. We are not. We are free to go.
His reference to the mafia was ruled out of order by the chair. Farage rephrased his point.
I do understand national sensitivities. I’ll change it to gangsters.
I will post more from the debate as it goes on.
Here is the agenda for the day.
From 8am: The European parliament debates its guidelines for the Brexit negotiations. MEPs vote at about 11am.
11am: Boris Johnson, the foreign secretary, holds a press conference at the Syria aid-pledging conference in Brussels.
1pm: Lord Mandelson, the Labour former business secretary, speaks about Brexit at an event at the Institute for Government.
4pm: Alex Salmond, the former Scottish first minister, hosts his LBC phone-in.
As usual, I will be covering breaking political news as it happens, as well as bringing you the best reaction, comment and analysis from the web. I plan to post a summary at lunchtime and another in the afternoon.
You can read all today’s Guardian politics stories here.
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
