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 and Peter J Walker

Brexit debate: MPs vote down Labour move to give parliament veto over Brexit deal – as it happened

A Pro-Brexit protest, London.
A Pro-Brexit protest, London. Photograph: Vickie Flores/REX/Shutterstock

Article 50 debate – Final summary

So, that’s a wrap. Here’s how things stand after two more Brexit amendments were voted down before close of play this evening.

  • The government sees off, by 337 noes to 281 ayes, Labour’s NC5 amendment. Similar to Chris Leslie’s attempt earlier in the day, this official Labour Party proposal would force Theresa May to publish any recently conducted Treasury impact statements of EU trading models. Chuka Umunna earlier fought its case when he said the Leave camp’s failure to stay loyal, to the £350m-a-week for the NHS promise, had betrayed referendum voters.
  • The SNP’s amendment was emphatically voted away by 333 noes to 79 ayes. The efforts moved by the party’s Stephen Gethins would force the government to publish an assessment surrounding the UK’s financial risks of leaving the EU before the article 50 card is dealt.
  • The article 50 white paper survives another day unharmed. MPs will resume debating the remaining amendments for the third and final day tomorrow. No one spoke more this evening than the SNP’s Patrick Grady, for a full 58 minutes, and at least one opposition MP accused him of “filibustering”. He was allowed to speak for so long thanks to the shear volume of amendments his party suggested.

Updated

The Brexit debate has concluded for its second of three days after both Labour’s NC5 amendment, and the SNP’s NC143 amendment, were defeated.

Updated

The SNP’s Patrick Grady, who has been championing his party’s amendments, a lot of it surrounding rural affairs, is taking a lot of flak from rival MPs despite an impressive performance.

Michael Gove criticises SNP’s leadership in Scotland. Deputy speaker Lindsay Hoyle interrupts: “You’ve been around this chamber far too long... I think I prefer you on the front bench rather than the back bench.”

Mr Grady banters back: “I think the Prime Minister might disagree.”

Seven other MPs are still due to speak...

Meanwhile, the Commons appears to look slightly busier than it did 30 minutes or so ago, as MPs sneak back in from the lobbies.

The moment Remainer and former education secretary, Nicky Morgan, appears to confront the chief whip before abstaining from an earlier vote. As tweeted by Sky’s Faisal Islam.

Updated

Hi, Peter J Walker here, taking over from Andrew Sparrow. Streatham MP and former shadow business secretary Chuka Umunna spent a good 30 minutes debating the £350m-a-week NHS figure with the Conservatives.

Michael Gove, a key player in the Leave camp, has since taken the floor. Green MP Caroline Lucas quickly intervenes, saying its “reckless” to proceed with Brexit without safeguards for environmental protection.

MPs are still scheduled to wrap proceedings up at about 9.45pm by voting on Labour’s amendment.

Updated

Article 50 debate - Early evening summary

Here is where we stand after the first half of this debate.

  • Theresa May has comfortably seen off an attempt by the opposition to ensure that parliament gets an effective veto over her Brexit deal. By a majority of 33, MPs voted against an amendment proposed by the Labour MP Chris Leslie that would have stopped ministers striking a Brexit agreement until it had been passed by MPs and peers. Seven Conservative MPs voted with Labour. (See 6.54pm.) The government faces a tricky vote tomorrow on the rights of EU nationals living in the UK, but tonight’s vote was seen as a flashpoint and May is on course for achieving her aim of getting the article 50 bill through the Commons without it being amended.
  • David Jones, the Brexit minister, has clarified when the vote being offered by the government on the Brexit deal will take place. He said that the vote would cover the deal on EU withdrawal and a future trade deal with the EU, that it would happen before the deal was concluded and that it would happen before the European parliament voted on this. (See 2.38pm.) Sir Keir Starmer, the shadow Brexit secretary, welcomed this as an important concession and withdrew Labour’s official amendment on this. Other Labour and opposition MPs said Starmer was wrong to claim this amounted to a significant concession, but Starmer’s move did mean that MPs voted on the Leslie amendment, not the Jeremy Corbyn one on the same topic (the official Labour one) and this may have made it easier for some Tory MPs to rebel.
  • Jones confirmed that, if MPs vote against the government’s final Brexit deal, the UK will leave the EU anyway without a deal. Effectively he confirmed it will be a “take it or leave it” vote. (See 2.54pm.)

MPs are now debating amendments relating to impact assessments on Brexit. They will vote at about 9.45pm, on the Labour amendment on this and possibly on others. See 1.54pm for more details.

I am finishing for the day, but a colleague will now be taking over.

Updated

How the parties voted on the Chris Leslie amendment

Here are the figures showing how the parties voted on the Chris Leslie amendment.

For the amendment - 293 MPs

Labour: 210

SNP: 54

Lib Dems: 9

Conservatives: 7 (See 6.54pm)

Independent: 4

SDLP: 3

Plaid Cymru: 3

UUP: 2

Green: 1

Against the amendment - 326 MPs

Conservatives: 312

DUP: 7

Labour: 6 (Ronnie Campbell, Frank Field, Kate Hoey, Kelvin Hopkins, Graham Stringer, and Gisela Stuart)

Ukip: 1

Sky’s Faisal Islam describes this as Theresa May’s “multi-MP” rebellion since she became prime minister.

By that he means - “not just Ken Clarke”.

List of seven Conservatives who voted with Labour on Chris Leslie's amendment

The division list for the first vote is out, and we now know that seven Conservatives voted with Labour, the SNP and other opposition parties in favour of the Chris Leslie’s amendment saying parliament should have to agree the Brexit deal.

The Tory rebels were:

Heidi Allen

Kenneth Clarke

Bob Neill

Claire Perry

Antoinette Sandbach

Anna Soubry

Andrew Tyrie

MPs vote against SNP amendment on a reset clause by majority of 248

MPs have voted against the SNP amendment by 336 votes to 88, a majority of 248.

The Conservative former education secretary Nicky Morgan has posted a new tweet, clarifying the one she posted earlier (see 4.21pm) welcoming David Jones’s “concession”.

MPs vote on SNP amendment demanding a reset clause in Brexit talks

MPs are now voting on an SNP amendment, NC180. It says.

UK—EU membership: reset (No.2)

The Prime Minister may not exercise the power under section 1(1) until she has sought an undertaking from the European Council that failure by the Parliament of the United Kingdom to approve the terms of exit for the UK will result in the maintenance of UK membership on existing terms.

MPs vote down Labour amendment saying MPs and peers should approve Brexit deal by majority of 33

MPs have rejected a Labour amendment saying MPs and peers would have to approve a Brexit deal by 326 votes to 293 - a majority of 33.

This is from Huffington Post’s Paul Waugh.

These are from the BBC’s Vicki Young.

This is from the Press Association’s Jack Maidment.

This is from Tony Grew’s @ParlyApp Twitter account.

This is from the Press Association’s Jack Maidment.

MPs vote on amendment saying MPs and peers should have to agree any Brexit deal

MPs are now voting on Chris Leslie’s amendment, NC110, saying that the government should not be allowed to agree a Brexit deal until it has been passed by both Houses of Parliament.

Here is the text of it.

Future relationship with the European Union

(1) Following the exercise of the power in section 1, any new Treaty or relationship with the European Union must not be concluded unless the proposed terms have been subject to approval by resolution of each House of Parliament.

(2) In the case of any new Treaty or relationship with the European Union, the proposed terms must be approved by resolution of each House of Parliament before they are agreed with the European Commission, with a view to their approval by the European Parliament or the European Council.

Chris Leslie now moves his amendment, NC110. He calls for a vote on it.

Sir Keir Starmer, the shadow Brexit secretary, says whatever Number 10 says, there was never a commitment to votes on both the Brexit deal and the new trade deal until today. There was never a commitment to a vote on the final draft deal. And there was never a commitment to a vote before MEPs vote, he says. He says these are real concessions.

He says the ambition should be to have a plan ready by October 2018.

He says, given what has been said, he will not push NC1 to a vote.

Jones is now going through some of the various amendments grouped with Labour’s NC1, and explaining why the government opposes them.

He says the government is not going into these negotiations anticipating failure. It is expecting success.

Remaining in the EU is not an option, he says. And revoking article 50 would require the agremeent of EU partners, and so is not in the UK’s control.

He says the government rejects all the amendments.

John Redwood, a Conservative, says there will be every opportunity for votes.

Jones says that is right.

He addresses NC110. The government has already offered a vote on the final Brexit deal, he says.

NC110 calls for a vote before terms are agreed, he says. He says that would allow the European commission to change its mind.

Kenneth Clarke intervenes. He says Jones has confirmed that the vote will be put to parliament after the deal is done with the European commission and the European council. That is exactly what was in the white paper, he says.

Jones says he is offering clarity. It is the final draft agreement that would be put to a vote, he says.

He says this will be the most important negotiation Britain has entered into for half a century.

He dismisses the claim that parliament will just be rubber-stamping the deal. He says the government wants to ensure that parliament is fully informed throughout the process.

David Jones's speech

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

He says the government would try to ensure that parliament votes before the European parliament, but it cannot control what the European commission does, he says.

Andrew Tyrie, the Conservative chair of the Treasury committee, says the government should prioritise getting a transitional deal, so that if it fails to get a full deal before the two-year withdrawal process is up, at least the UK will not leave the EU without arrangements in place.

He says he is mined to vote against the government but will listen to what the minister says.

Labour’s Pat McFadden, a former shadow Europe minister, is speaking now. He is championing his own amendment on ensuring that any Brexit deal has to be approved by parliament, NC137. He says the suggestion that if MPs vote against a Brexit deal, the UK would leave the EU anyway without a deal is entirely unsatisfactory.

Perry says she has heard “some very substantial concessions” from the government on the timing of the Brexit vote.

Before she decides how to vote, she will listen carefully to the government minister winding up, she says.

Claire Perry, the Conservative former minister, says she sees this as an issue of principle. She says she is glad that the government has confirmed today that parliament will get a vote on the Brexit deal.

She says some of her colleagues sound like jihadis in their support for a hard Brexit.

Labour’s David Lammy says it would be madness to leave the EU with no trade deal, and having to rely simply to WTO terms.

UPDATE: Lammy has tweeted a link to a video of his speech.

Updated

Yvette Cooper, the Labour chair of the Commons home affairs committee, said the advantage of Chris Leslie’s NC110 (over Labour’s official amendment, she implied, although she does not quite put it like that) was that it commits the government to giving parliament a vote on the proposed Brexit deal before it gets finalised with the European commission, the European council and the European parliament.

Here is the text of Leslie’s NC110.

Future relationship with the European Union

(1) Following the exercise of the power in section 1, any new Treaty or relationship with the European Union must not be concluded unless the proposed terms have been subject to approval by resolution of each House of Parliament.

(2) In the case of any new Treaty or relationship with the European Union, the proposed terms must be approved by resolution of each House of Parliament before they are agreed with the European Commission, with a view to their approval by the European Parliament or the European Council.

For comparison, you can ready the official Labour amendment, NC1, here. NC1 says the government should have to publish its Brexit deal before it is agreed with the European commission, the European parliament and the European council. It also says that “no minister of the crown may conclude any such agreement [the Brexit deal] unless the proposed terms have been approved by resolution of both Houses.” But it does not explain what “conclude any such agreement” means and it does not explicitly say the parliamentary votes would have to take place before the European commission, the European council and the European parliament agree it.

Scottish parliament votes for SNP motion saying article 50 bill should not proceed

In Edinburgh the Scottish parliament has voted for an SNP motion saying the article 50 bill should not proceed. This is from the BBC’s Philip Sim.

Anna Soubry, the Conservative pro-European, is speaking now. She says she does not know if “willy-waving” is a parliamentary term, but there has been too much of it in this debate she says.

She says she voted for article 50 last week because she said she would accept the result of the referendum. But it worries her that she did not vote in the best interests of her constituents.

But now she must stand up for what she believes, she says. She says she supports Chris Leslie’s amendment on giving parliament a vote on the final deal, NC110.

(But we don’t know yet whether there will be a vote on NC110. There will be a vote on NC1, Jeremy Corbyn’s amendment on giving parliament a vote - see 1.54pm - but Soubry has not said yet whether or not she will vote for that.)

When governments make concessions during the legislative process, normally they talk up the significance of what they are saying, while the opposition downplays it.

But today Number 10 is doing its best to imply that David Jones did not say anything very new (see 4.58pm), while Labour has just put out a statement saying it was “a significant victory”. In a press notice Sir Keir Starmer, the shadow Brexit secretary, said:

This is a significant victory for parliament, and follows months of concerted pressure from Labour.

Labour has repeatedly said that parliament must have a meaningful vote on any final Brexit deal – that means MPs are able to vote on the final deal before it is concluded; that the Commons has a debate and vote before the European Parliament does; and that the vote will cover withdrawal from the EU as well as our future relationship with the EU.

This eleventh hour concession is therefore welcome, but it needs to be firmed up as the bill progresses through both Houses.

No 10 says David Jones' Brexit vote 'concession' does not change government policy

The prime minister’s spokesman has made it clear that there has been no change in government policy about a vote on EU negotiation since it was announced at Theresa May’s Lancaster House speech, despite rebel Tory MPs and Labour frontbenchers heralding a “major concession”. At the afternoon Number 10 lobby briefing he told reporters:

There will be a meaningful vote in the House and it will be on the deal that has been agreed or leaving the EU without that negotiated deal.

We’ve said all along we would offer both Houses of parliament the vote and all the minister has done today is set out the process around that. We intend there to be a vote on the final deal, before the European parliament has voted.

David Jones, the Brexit minister, had changed nothing substantial today, the spokesman said. He went on:

The prime minister said at her Lancaster House speech that there would be this meaningful vote, and the secretary of state in the debate last week indicated that would most likely be before the European parliament votes.

Number 10 appeared unsure as to what would happen if the European parliament were to then vote down the deal. “We have always been clear that we plan to get the negotiation settled within the two-year timeframe of article 50,” the spokesman said.

Yvette Cooper, the Labour MP, asks Grieve if he thinks Jones meant that parliament would get a vote after a deal has been agreed between the European council and the government. Or would it be before then?

Grieve says there is a problem here, because a deal might be agreed early, or at the last minute.

Kenneth Clarke, the Conservative former chancellor, says there is an easy solution to this. In EU negotiations it is not unusual to “stop the clock”. They could make allowance for the fact that the British government needs two weeks or so to get its deal agreed by parliament. He says the government should table an amendment, or promise to introduce one in the Lords. Or MPs could pass an amendment today, like Chris Leslie’s NC110, and get the government to replace it in the Lords.

  • Kenneth Clarke says MPs should vote for an amendment to make sure that the Commons gets a vote on the Brexit deal.

Grieve says he thinks there will be a problem with putting an amendment into the bill.

He says he preference is to trust the government to honour its promise.

  • Dominic Grieve, a leading Conservative pro-European, says he is not in favour of amending the article 50 bill to ensure the Commons gets a vote on the Brexit deal.

Dominic Grieve, the Conservative former attorney general, is speaking now. He says he helped to obtain the concession obtained today. But Labour MPs intervene and tell him lobby journalists have just been told by Downing Street that what David Jones said did not amount to a real change.

Grieve says his view is that what Jones announced is “a significant step forward”.

The Labour MP Liz Kendall says what the government has offered does not amount to a serious concession.

Chris Leslie, the Labour former shadow chancellor, is speaking now. He says David Jones suggested he was making a great concession earlier. But MPs has now realised that that is not the case.

First, Jones said MPs would not get a vote if there was no deal, Leslie says. (See 2.50pm.)

And Jones said that if MPs voted against a deal, the UK would leave anyway.

Leslie has tabled his own amendment saying no Brexit deal should be finalised until MPs and peers have voted in favour.

The former Conservative chief whip Mark Harper asks what would happen if parliament voted against the deal under Leslie’s plan.

Leslie says that he would expect ministers to go back and get a better deal.

The Green MP Caroline Lucas has now put out a statement describing the government’s “concession” offered this afternoon as an ultimatum. She said:

MPs must not be duped by the government’s attempt to quell unrest on their backbenches. The vote they’re offering – which will give MPs a choice between an extreme brexit and falling off a cliff edge into WTO trade rules – isn’t a concession, it’s an ultimatum. Parliament should have a real voice on the terms of brexit – not a symbolic handout from a government trying to railroad their extreme brexit through the House of Commons.

The Labour frontbench’s premature celebration of this non-announcement was utterly misguided. In the few hours we have to analyse the article 50 bill it’s crucial that MPs are forensic, not fawning in the face of government spin.

Nicky Morgan, one of the Conservative MPs seen as a potential rebel over article 50, has welcomed the government’s concession announced this afternoon on the timing of the votes on the Brexit deal.

Sir Oliver Letwin, the Conservative former Cabinet Office minister, is speaking now. He says he campaigned for remain. But people voted to leave, and leave should mean leave, he says, not remain.

He says the opposition parties, in their amendments on parliamentary scrutiny, are trying to find a way of undoing the results of the referendum.

He says parties like the Lib Dems are refusing to accept the result of the referendum.

But the problem with that attitude is that views like that helped to give rise to the leave vote in the first place, he says. He says the problem goes back to when the last Conservative government passed the Maastricht treaty against the wishes of the people.

Nick Clegg, the former Lib Dem leader who is now his party’s EU spokesman, has put out a statement saying the concession proposed by David Jones (see 2.38pm) does not amount to parliament getting a “meaningful” vote on Brexit. Clegg said:

This concession from the government could still put MPs in an invidious position, faced with a choice between a bad deal and no deal at all.

It is not good enough for the government to offer Parliament a hard Brexit or an even harder Brexit.

For any final vote amongst MPs to be meaningful, Parliament must be granted the power to send the government back to the negotiating table if the deal they put forward is not good enough.

Furthermore, this shouldn’t just be a decision for Westminster. The British people must be given a final say, with the option to reject the deal and stay in the EU.

Tim Farron, the Lib Dem leader, is speaking now. He is promoting the Lib Dem amendment saying there should be a second referendum, to give the public the final say on the deal.

He says David Davis, the Brexit secretary, used to back calls for a second referendum when the Conservatives were in opposition.

Labour’s Kevan Jones asks what would happen if the public voted against the Brexit deal.

Farron says the Lib Dems want to give people the opportunity to look over the cliff edge and decide not to jump. If they were to vote no, the UK would stay in the EU.

Sir Bill Cash, the veteran Conservative Eurosceptic, is speaking now. He says today is the 25th anniversary of the signing of the Maastricht treaty. He tabled more than 150 amendments to the bill when it was going through the Commons, he says.

Claire Perry, a Conservative, says that if Cash put down that many amendments to the Maastricht treaty bill, he should be supporting those MPs who want their MPs to this bill debated and voted on.

Cash says he and his colleagues were quite open then about opposing government policy. And they were calling for a referendum, which we eventually had last year.

The Green MP Caroline Lucas has said on Twitter that MPs are being “duped” by the apparent concession being offered by David Jones.

Conservative rebels were not immediately satisfied by the concession offered by David Jones.

One told the Guardian it was not enough, but said they hoped the Brexit secretary, David Davis, would further clarify it.

A second insisted it was “nearly there” but said potential rebels were determined that the word “agreement” would cover a situation in which there was no deal. They said parliament must “get a vote in all scenarios”.

Why the government's amendment does not give Labour what it wants

It is now clear that the concession that David Jones announced about 45 minutes ago does not give Labour what it wants. To clarify, this is what has and has not been announced.

We already knew that MPs and peers would get a vote on the Brexit deal. Theresa May announced that in her Lancaster House speech.

Today David Jones told us three new things about these votes: that they would cover both the exit deal, and the new trade deal with the EU that the government wants to secure; that they would take place before the deal was finalised; and that they would take place before the European parliament voted on the deal. (See 2.38pm.)

Labour’s NC1 (see 1.54pm) also says votes in the Commons and the Lords must cover both the exit deal, and the new trade deal being negotiated. And it says that the government should publish a statement about the Brexit deal before it is agreed by the European parliament.

But NC1 suggests the votes in the Commons and the Lords should amount to a veto. It says:

No minister of the crown may conclude any such agreement [a Brexit deal, or a new trade one] unless the proposed terms have been approved by resolution of both Houses.

This implies strongly - although does not say explicitly - that if MPs and peers were to reject the deal, minister would be send back to try again. In other words, parliament would be able to exercise a veto.

But Jones has explicitly said that this is not what the government is offering. Ministers will only give MPs and peers a ‘take it or leave it vote’, with the result that if the deal gets rejected, the UK will crash out of the EU anyway, defaulting to trading with the EU on WTO terms. (See 2.54pm.)

Updated

It is starting to look as if Sir Keir Starmer was too trusting when he welcomed David Jones’ concession relatively warmly earlier.

This is from Labour’s Ben Bradshaw.

This is from my colleague Rowena Mason.

And this is from the Daily Mail’s Jason Groves.

Alex Salmond's speech

Alex Salmond, the former SNP leader and former Scottish first minister, is speaking now. He says if this is a significant concession, it should be in the form of a written amendment.

Labour’s Angela Eagle says if MPs are offered a Hobson’s choice, that does not amount to a proper choice.

Salmond agrees.

He says David Davis said some time ago that he did not know whether the article 50 process was revocable.

Ed Miliband, the former Labour leader, says if the European parliament votes down the deal, the European commission will try for a better one. But if this parliament votes it down, there will not be an attempt to get a better one. Yet we pride ourselves on our sovereignty, he says.

Jones suggests Miliband does not understand the process. He says if the European parliament votes down the deal, there is no guarantee there will be another one.

Hilary Benn, the Labour chair of the Brexit committee, asks Jones to clarify the offer again.

Jones reads out the statement he made earlier. (See 2.38pm.)

Jones confirms Commons vote on the Brexit deal will be on a ‘take it or leave it’ basis

Labour’s Pat McFadden asks what will happen if MPs decline to approve the draft agreement.

Jones says he has already answered that. The vote will be either to accept the deal. Or there will be no deal. That is the most meaningful vote you can imagine.

  • Jones confirms Commons vote on the Brexit deal will be on a ‘take it or leave it’ basis.

(Jones has probably just undermined the significance of what he was offering 20 minutes ago.)

Dominic Grieve, the Conservative former attorney general, says we don’t know when the agreement will be finalised. It could be at one minute to midnight before the deadline. In those circumstances, letting MPs debate it first could lead to the deal being lost.

Jones says this is a very fair point.

Alex Salmond, the SNP MP, asks Jones to table an amendment on this. If they don’t, the Lords can put it into the bill as an amendment, he says, so it can be debated by MPs.

Stephen Doughty, the Labour MP, asks Jones what he meant earlier when he said if there was no deal after two years, the UK would fall back on other arrangements.

Jones says he is talking about relying on WTO trade terms. He says:

If there were no agreement at all, which is a scenario I think is extremely unlikely, then ultimately it would be falling back upon World Trade Organisation arrangements. This, again, is nothing new. It’s been made very clear previously.

Alistair Burt, a Conservative, asks Jones to confirm that there would be a vote even if the “deal” amounts to there being no deal.

Jones says it is hard to see how the Commons could have a vote if there were no deal.

But, if there were no deal, ministers would still have to make a statement to the Commons, he says.

Updated

Ken Clarke asks what David Jones means when he says the vote will take place before the deal is agreed. Does that mean agreed with the other 27 member states? Or does that just mean before it is actually signed off by the European commission?

Jones says this will be a difficult and complex negotiation.

But what the government is proposing is that before the agreement is concluded, it will be put to a vote of the Commons and the Lords. That means the final draft agreement would be put to a vote, he says.

Labour’s Geraint Davies asks what will happen if the Commons votes it down and it then gets agreed by the European parliament.

Jones says, if it were voted down, it would not be put to the European parliament.

David Jones' speech

David Jones, the Brexit minister, is speaking now.

He repeats what he said to Sir Keir Starmer earlier.

Nick Clegg intervenes. He says a withdrawal agreement can be achieved in two years. But it is highly unlikely that Britain will get a trade deal with the EU within two years. So what would happen then?

You just stressed to the House again that this only applies to both the withdrawal agreement and a final agreement from the future relationship between the UK and EU. It is my view, shared by many others, that the former is feasible within two years, the latter is highly unlikely within two years. Could you tell the House what will happen in that case, in other words a withdrawal agreement is agreed but not a new future agreement between the UK and EU?

Jones says the government hopes to do both in two years. But the prime minister has made it clear that, if there is no final trade deal after two years, the UK will fall back on other arrangements. He says:

Clearly I must preface what I’m about to say by saying we do not accept that we will not achieve such agreement, but the prime minister has already made clear that if we cannot come to an agreement then clearly we will have to fall back on other arrangements. That is something upon which the government has been consistently clear.

Updated

Starmer says the most helpful thing would be for him to stop now and let David Jones speak.

Sir Keir Starmer is still speaking. He says it would be helpful if the government were to put its offer in writing.

(But he is in some difficulty, because Jones’s offer has to a large extent replicated what Labour is asking for in NC1. See 1.54pm.)

Government concession on timing of the Brexit vote - What Jones said

This is what David Jones, the Brexit minister, said to Sir Keir Starmer about the government’s concession. (See 2.29pm.)

First of all we intend that the vote will cover not only the withdrawal arrangements but also the future relationship with the European Union. Furthermore, I can confirm that the government will bring forward a motion on the final agreement to be approved by both Houses of Parliament before it is concluded, and we expect and intend that this happen before the European parliament debates and votes on the final agreement.

Ken Clarke, the Conservative pro-European, intervenes. He warns Sir Keir Starmer to be cautious about accepting what the government is saying until we get the detail. He suggests that it might help if David Jones gives a speech early in the debate, instead of waiting until the end of the debate to make his speech.

The SNP’s Alex Salmond says, if this concession is so important, it should be put on the face of the bill.

Government makes concession on article 50 giving MPs vote on final Brexit deal before it is signed

Starmer says the central point he is making is that a vote in the Commons must be before the deal is concluded.

David Jones, the Brexit minister, gets up. He hopes to be helpful, he says. He says in his speech later he will talk about how the vote will work. But he can make some announcements now.

  • Jones says the government’s vote will cover withdrawal from the EU, and the UK’s future relationship with the EU.
  • He says both Houses of Parliament will get a vote on the final deal before the deal is concluded.
  • He says parliament will vote on the deal before the European parliament does.

Starmer says this is an important concession. He welcomes it.

He says “in large parts” this gives Labour what it is asking for in NC1. (See 1.54pm.)

Starmer says “nagging away and making the arguments”, Labour has got a white paper from the government, and a commitment to a vote at the end.

Keir Starmer's speech

Sir Keir Starmer, the shadow Brexit secretary, opens the debate.

He says he will speak to NC1 and related amendments. (See 1.54pm.) These are the most important being debated, he says.

He says the Brexit negotiations will be the most difficult that Britain has engaged in since the war.

He says Labour has consistently been asking for three things: a white paper; a system for reporting back during the Brexit negotiations; and a vote at the end.

MPs resume debate on article 50 bill

MPs are resuming the debate on the article 50 bill.

The Labour MP Paul Farrelly raises a point of order. He asks Natascha Engel, the deputy speaker, why only one of the dozens of amendments tabled will be put to a vote. (See 1.54pm.) The nation wants to know, he says.

Engel says Farrelly knows the answer. There was a programme motion, and amendments were grouped.

Updated

Sir Gerald Howarth, a Conservative, says MPs want to support John Bercow. He says Theresa May managed to achieve a very good outcome when she went to Washington. He says he hopes MPs can have confidence in Bercow’s impartiality.

Bercow says he was speaking yesterday about his responsibilities in relation to Westminster Hall. So he was commenting on someone that fell within his remit.

The SNP’s Alex Salmond says the amendments being debated to the article 50 bill hinge on whether triggering article 50 is irrevocable. Can the Commons get any guidance on this?

John Bercow says he is not convinced this is a matter for him. He thinks Salmond is more interested in making his own point.

John Bercow, the speaker, is not taking points of order.

Sir Edward Leigh, a Conservative, says he has doubts about not inviting the president of America to parliament, but that he thinks the Commons can only work if they respect the authority of the speaker.

Bercow thanks Leigh.

Guide to what's happening in today's article 50 debate

MPs will soon start debating the article 50 bill again. It is the second day of the bill’s committee stage.

Here is the full list of amendments tabled to the bill (pdf).

Today’s debate will take place in two parts. The first four hours will be devoted to amendments relating to a vote on the final terms of Brexit. At around 6pm there will be at least one vote and, as the grouping of the amendments (pdf) shows, the lead amendment selected for a vote is NC1 (new clause 1), an amendment tabled by the Labour front bench. NC1 says:

Parliamentary approval for agreements with the Union

(1) Where a Minister of the Crown proposes to conclude an agreement with the European Union setting out the arrangements for the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union— (a) the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a statement of the proposed terms of the agreement, and (b) no Minister of the Crown may conclude any such agreement unless the proposed terms have been approved by resolution of both Houses.

(2) The requirements of subsection (1) also apply where a Minister of the Crown proposes to conclude an agreement with the European Union for the future relationship of the United Kingdom with the European Union.

(3) In the case of a proposed agreement setting out the arrangements for the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union, the statement under subsection (1)(a) must be laid before the proposed terms are agreed with the Commission with a view to their approval by the European Parliament or the Council.

Then there will be a three-hour debate on amendments relating to impact assessments. At around 9.15pm there will be at least one vote, and the lead amendment selected for a vote is NC5, another official Labour one. NC5 says:

Impact assessments

(1) The Prime Minster may not give notice under section 1 until either— (a) HM Treasury has published any impact assessment it has conducted since 23 June 2016 on the United Kingdom’s future trading relationship with the European Union, or, (b) HM Treasury has laid a statement before both Houses of Parliament declaring that no such assessment has been conducted since 23 June 2016.

Grant Shapps, the Conservative former housing minister, told the Daily Politics that the white paper would not make much difference, the BBC reports.

Javid says immigration not to blame for the housing crisis

Sajid Javid is still taking questions in the Commons. The Conservative pro-leave campaigner Peter Bone asked Javid if he agreed that demand for housing would fall if the government reduced net migration.

Javid did not accept this. He told Bone:

I’ve looked at this carefully and I’m not sure it actually makes the kind of difference that my honourable friend believes. Two thirds of housing demand has got nothing to do with immigration. It is to do with natural population growth, in particular people living longer. And that will be something that has to be catered for regardless. And even if immigration were to fall to zero, for example, we would still have a deficit of homes of some 2m, and people would still be in overcrowded homes. So we would still have to keep building.

  • Javid says immigration not to blame for the housing crisis.

Here is the Local Government Association’s response to the housing white paper. This is from Cllr Martin Tett, the LGA’s housing spokesman.

This white paper includes some encouraging signs that government is listening to councils on how to boost housing supply and increase affordability. We are pleased it has taken on board a number of recommendations made in our recent housing commission final report.

Communities must have faith that the planning system responds to their aspirations for their local area, rather than simply being driven by national targets. To achieve this, councils must have powers to ensure that new homes are affordable and meet their assessments of local need, are attractive and well-designed, and are supported by the schools, hospitals, roads and other services vital for places to succeed.

All types of homes - including those for affordable and social rent – have to be built to solve our housing crisis and flexibility around starter homes is much-needed recognition of this. It is important that councils have powers to ensure a mix of homes are built, alongside the infrastructure to support strong communities.

Our cities, towns and villages are already saying ‘yes’ to development as nine in 10 planning applications are approved, but increasingly the homes are not being built. Giving councils the power to force developers to build homes more quickly and to properly fund their planning services are vital for our communities to prosper.

Local government believes even more needs to be done to rapidly build more genuinely affordable homes to help families struggling to meet housing costs, provide homes to rent, reduce homelessness and tackle the housing waiting lists many councils have.

For this to happen, councils desperately need the powers and access to funding to resume their historic role as a major builder of affordable homes. This means being able to borrow to invest in housing and to keep 100 per cent of the receipts from properties sold through Right to Buy to replace homes and reinvest in building more of the genuine affordable homes our communities desperately need.

And here is some more Twitter comment on the white paper.

From Philip Aldrick, economics editor at the Times

From Claer Barrett, personal finance editor at the Financial Times

From Neal Hudson, a housing market analyst

From the Telegraph columnist Liam Halligan

From the economics commentator and former Telegraph journalist George Trefgarne

Here is Peter Apps, news editor at Inside Housing, on the white paper.

And the Independent’s Jon Stone has picked up two more interesting charts from the white paper.

This is from Sky’s Ed Conway.

Here is some reaction to the housing white paper from three thinktanks.

From Jonathan Carr-West, chief executive of the Local Government Information Unit, a local government thinktank

We are pleased that the white paper contains many of the measures we have called for in our recent work with the Federation of Master Builders and with the National Trust. We particularly welcome proposals to bring more small builders into house building, to tackle land banking and to assure quality development.

However, we are not convinced that this white paper goes far enough to address the democratic deficit in our planning system. In a recent survey, we found that seven out of ten local councillors believe that the system is weighted in favour of developers at the expense of local communities. They also told us the system was too dominated by central government: a trend this white paper looks set to exacerbate rather than reverse.

We desperately need more housing, but we also need the planning system to be democratically accountable. That’s why councillors need to be at the centre of it. This white paper is a missed opportunity to put them there.

From Luke Murphy, the IPPR’s senior research fellow on housing

IPPR welcomes the launch of the government’s White Paper which is the first for a nearly decade.

However, while many of the reforms that have been proposed are welcome, if the government is serious about building the homes our country needs then it needs to go much further.

The housing supply system in England is broken. To fix it, the government must tackle the dysfunctional land market and be willing to invest more in affordable housing. The government must also recognise that while there is a housing crisis in every part of the country, the issues in London are very different from those in Sunderland: which is why it so disappointing that there appears to be so little about further devolution of housing investment and powers.

In addition, increasing housing supply takes time and will do little to benefit many people who will be renting privately for years to come. The government has outlined some limited proposals on private renting but it’s not clear whether the incentives being proposed will deliver the fundamental reform that tenants need.

From Mark Littlewood, director general at the Institute of Economic Affairs

Despite being well-intentioned, many of the initiatives put forward are fiddly and fail to address the main cause of Britain’s broken housing market: a lack of supply.

Forcing councils to set aside land for new homes is largely meaningless if developers can’t build on it because of our restrictive planning laws. And initiatives encouraging pensioners to downsize are a red herring - many don’t downsize simply because there is a lack of suitable alternatives.

Unfortunately, the government has shied away from liberalising the planning system, despite this being by far the best way to bring down housing costs. Even freeing up a small percentage of greenbelt land would make a huge difference to supply. It is a shame to see this opportunity to reform the housing market fall by the wayside, at the expense of those trying to get onto the housing ladder, and the millions in rental accommodation. It seems politics has once again trumped sensible economics.

The white paper contains four boxes that offer a step-by-step summary of the proposals the government is making to addressing the housing shortage.

Summary of proposals.
Summary of proposals. Photograph: Housing white paper
List of proposals.
List of proposals. Photograph: Housing white paper

Here is the 104-page white paper (pdf).

Housing white paper.
Housing white paper. Photograph: DCLG

Javid is responding to Healey.

He accuses Healey of paying cheap party politics. He could do that, he says. He could say house building dropped to its lowest levels when Healey was housing minister.

He says home ownership declined under Labour, because enough homes were not being built.

On homelessness, he says Labour MPs tried to destroy the homelessness reduction bill.

He says he wants a policy that helps renters and people who want to buy.

And, on council housing, he says Healey did not listen to what he said. He wants councils to build more homes, he suggests.

He says Labour councillors are working with the government on this issue because they have given up on the opposition.

Labour says Javid’s plan is “feeble beyond belief”

John Healey, the shadow housing minister, is responding. He asks: “Is this it?”

He says the statement will disappoint people.

The statement was “feeble beyond belief”.

  • Labour says Javid’s plan is “feeble beyond belief”.

He says we have heard ministers say many times before they want to free up land for housing.

He mocks the suggestion that Javid’s plans are original.

On home ownership, he says home ownership is in freefall for young people. Yet this white paper shows that the Tories have given up on new home ownership.

Why not reverse the cuts to new affordable housing?

Why not stop people earning more than £100,000 from benefiting from these schemes?

Healey says Javid did not mention homelessness. He says the levels of homelessness shame us all. The government should adopt Labour’s programme on this, he says.

He says there is very little in the white paper to help renters.

Why won’t the government drop its hostility to council housing and let councils build new homes?

We were promised with a white paper. We are presented with a white flag.

He says he wants to diversify the housing market. Lack of competition is stifling growth, he says.

On renting, he says the government will work to promote three-year tenancy agreements.

Javid says we are not building quickly enough.

He says the government will speed up the completion process. It will simplify the planning process. And it will tackle anything that gets in the way, from planning laws to great crested newts.

Javid says last year saw the highest number of housing completions since the great recession.

But there is still a serious problem, he says. And the cause is simple; we are not building enough new homes.

Sajid Javid starts by saying he hoped his announcement would dominate the news today. But someone beat him to it, he says, referring to John Bercow.

Bercow says that he made his announcement (about Donald Trump) to the Commons first. Some of what Javid is saying has been pre-briefed.

Here is the Lib Dem MP Alistair Carmichael commenting on Labour’s decision to impose a three-line whip on the article 50 bill third reading. He said:

Jeremy Corbyn has finally given up. This is going to cause a big headache for many Labour MPs and not just for Diane Abbott.

The Liberal Democrats urge these MPs, like Owen Smith has, to back our position of giving the people the final say on the deal. If that is not delivered, we urge them to vote against article 50.

Sajid Javid's statement on housing white paper

Sajid Javid, the communities secretary, is about to make a Commons statement on the housing white paper.

Here’s our preview story.

On the Daily Politics the Conservative MP Alec Shelbrooke has just said that John Bercow’s position as speaker is “untenable” because of what he said about Donald Trump yesterday. Shelbrooke said Bercow was not being impartial.

Jeremy Corbyn’s decision to impose a three-line whip on the article 50 bill at third reading will create a difficult decision for MPs such as Clive Lewis, the shadow business secretary, who has said he would find it hard to vote for the Brexit bill without amendments.

Diane Abbott, the shadow home secretary, is also the subject of speculation about which way she will vote, after she was absent from the first Commons vote with a migraine.

However, one Labour shadow cabinet source said they did not believe Abbott in particular would end up walking away from Corbyn’s leadership team.

Here’s the Press Association copy on Jeremy Corbyn ordering Labour MPs to vote for the article 50 bill at third reading tomorrow.

Jeremy Corbyn has ordered Labour MPs to back the Brexit bill in its final House of Commons stage on Wednesday, paving the way for Theresa May to trigger the formal exit process, a Labour source said.

The Labour leader is imposing a three-line whip on his MPs in a move which risks the resignation of high-profile shadow cabinet ministers like Clive Lewis.

The move to vote for the European Union (notification of withdrawal) bill at third reading, its final Commons stage, was agreed by the shadow cabinet on Tuesday morning, the source said.

The issue caused heated debate at a meeting of the parliamentary Labour party (PLP) on Monday after 47 MPs defied Corbyn and voted against the Bill at its first Commons stage last week.

It is believed the party’s chief whip Nick Brown wanted “consistency” in dealing with the passage of the bill, which Labour is currently trying to amend at committee stage.

The imposition of a three-line whip before knowing if safeguards demanded by Labour are successfully added to the bill risks forcing the resignation of Lewis.

The shadow business secretary has vowed to oppose the bill unless Labour amendments, including a move to ensure a “meaningful” parliamentary vote on the final exit deal the prime minister achieves, are passed in the Commons.

Remain-backing Tory MPs have indicated they could be willing to support amendments seeking to ensure parliament gets a say on the “endgame” if Brexit negotiations collapse without a deal.

But Corbyn’s order also appears to put pressure on his close ally and shadow home secretary Diane Abbott, who did not vote on the bill last week after a migraine forced her to leave Parliament early.

Critics have accused Abbott of falling victim to “Brexit flu” because her constituency voted overwhelmingly in the referendum to remain.

The reason for the collapse of the last power sharing devolved government in Belfast leading to elections to a new Assembly on 2 March is on one level unusual for Northern Ireland.

Rather than arguments about the big constitutional/sectarian issues the outgoing Democratic Unionist Party-Sinn Fein administration fell due to a botched green energy scheme.

The Renewable Heat Incentive or RHI was championed by the DUP as an ecologically sound way to heat farms and businesses across the region. It turned into a financial disaster which will cost the tax payer upwards of £500m over the next decade.

Opposition parties before Christmas demanded an public inquiry into the scheme which the DUP and in particular Northern Ireland’s first minister Arlene Foster stubbornly resisted. In response to this Martin McGuinness, the Sinn Fein deputy first minister, resigned from his post in January. Under the complex rules of power sharing if the major representative of one community pulls out of government then the coalition must fall. Hence the snap election.

While the main reason for the crisis was a non-sectarian issue, the election campaign so far has been marked by traditional rows over the usual tribal questions.

Arlene Foster, the DUP leader, raised a row on Monday by stating her party will oppose any move to establish an Irish Language Act which would put Gaelic on the same par as English. Her nationalist opponents accused her of adopting a sectarian attitude towards the Irish language.

Given the rancour already poisoning the electoral atmosphere, it is hard to see how once the votes are cast the main parties, particularly Sinn Fein and the DUP, can quickly rebuild trust and restore the power sharing institutions in Northern Ireland.

Eight major parties are fighting for 90 seats in a drastically reduced Assembly at Stormont. All the pollsters suggest the DUP and Sinn Fein should emerge as the two major parties when the votes are counted next month.

Arlene Foster launching the DUP’s election campaign in Lurgan, Northern Ireland, yesterday.
Arlene Foster launching the DUP’s election campaign in Lurgan, Northern Ireland, yesterday. Photograph: Clodagh Kilcoyne/Reuters

Updated

Corbyn imposes 3-line whip telling Labour MPs to back article 50 bill at 3rd reading

Labour MPs will be ordered to vote for the article 50 bill at third reading tomorrow, PoliticsHome’s Kevin Schofield reports.

Updated

Majority of voters think Brexit will make no difference to their personal finances, poll suggests

The final set of questions in today’s Guardian/ICM poll covered Brexit. People were asked whether Brexit would have a positive or negative impact on the British economy, on their own personal finances and on life in Britain today in general.

Here are the overall findings.

Impact on the British economy

Positive: 38%

Negative: 43%

No difference: 19%

Impact on personal finances

Positive: 12%

Negative: 34%

No difference: 54%

Impact on life in Britain today in general

Positive: 41%

Negative: 36%

No difference: 23%

To summarise:

  • A majority of people think Brexit will make no difference to their personal finances, poll suggests.
  • Only 12% of people think Brexit will make them personally better off, poll suggests. A third of people think Brexit will make them worse off.
  • People are more likely to think Brexit will be good for Britain than bad for Britain, even though they are also more likely to think it will be bad for the economy than good for the economy.

As you would expect, the detailed tables show that people who voted leave are much more likely to think Brexit will have a positive impact than people who voted remain. But the figures are not an exact mirror image.

On the question about whether Brexit will be good or bad for the economy, 81% of remainers think it will have a negative impact. But only 70% of leavers think it will have a positive impact.

And on the matter of whether or not Brexit will be good or bad for personal finances, only 60% of remain voters think they will be worse off. Some 36% think Brexit will make no difference to them personally. And only 20% of leave voters think Brexit will be good for their own personal finances. Another 69% think it will make no difference to them, while 10% think they will be worse off.

ICM Unlimited interviewed an online sample of 1,984 adults aged 18+ on 3-5 February 2017. Interviews were conducted across the country and the results have been weighted to the profile of all adults. ICM is a member of the British Polling Council and abides by its rules.

I will post a link to the tables as soon as they are available online.

The Institute for Fiscal Studies has published its green budget this morning. As my colleague Phillip Inman reports, it says the government is on course to impose steep cuts in public spending from April and increase taxes by the end of the decade to their highest level as a share of national income since 1986–87 to combat the UK’s persistent budget deficit.

Poll suggests voters have doubts about both May and Corbyn's approach to Trump

The Guardian/ICM poll included a question about Britain’s relationship with Donald Trump’s administration. The poll was carried out before John Bercow let rip at Trump in the Commons yesterday, but its findings suggest most people want Britain to adopt a “balanced” approach to Trump, neither particularly supportive or particularly critical.

People were asked which of these three statements they most agreed with.

Britain should be a trusted partner, offering guidance when necessary and being as or more supportive of President Trump than any other nation, in the hope of getting a favourable trade deal and a continued special relationship: 15%

Britain should be balanced and diplomatic, offering support and criticism when it feels necessary to do so: 57%

Britain should stand back, and adopt a tough approach, condemning the introduction of measures that Britain believes would be harmful: 19%

Don’t know: 9%

This poll could be read as showing that voters do not support either Theresa May or Jeremy Corbyn’s stance on Trump.

Corbyn has been outspoken in his criticism of Trump, and he has made little effort to sound “balanced and diplomatic”.

May would argue that she has been “balanced and diplomatic”, and that her stance is the one backed by the 57%, but there is ample evidence to back the charge that she has been overly supportive of Trump. She took the unprecedented step of inviting him to the UK for a state visit only a week after he took office, she initially refused to criticise his travel ban and, before he became president, Number 10 took the very unusual step of criticising a speech by the outgoing US secretary of state John Kerry on Israel even thought its contents mostly reflected current UK government policy. According to the Sun’s James Forsyth, the Downing Street anti-Kerry briefing was a deliberate attempt to curry favour with the Trump administration to compensate for the fact that the Trump team were angered by the government’s decision to vote for an anti-Israel resolution at the UN.

On the BBC’s Victoria Derbyshire show Andrew Mitchell, the Conservative former chief whip and former international development secretary, has just said that he does not agree with what John Bercow said about Donald Trump but that he thinks Bercow was entitled to say what he said. Mitchell said Bercow was “a very good, modern Speaker”.

Sajid Javid, the communities secretary, said told the Today programme this morning that John Bercow, the Commons speaker, was not speaking on behalf of the government when he said President Trump should not be invited to address parliament because of his racism and sexism. Here is our story with the latest reaction to what Bercow said.

Lord Fowler, the Lord Speaker in the House of Lords, will issue his own statement on the matter when the Lords sits at 2.30pm.

Only a third of voters think Labour will win an election by 2025, poll suggests

The latest Guardian/ICM poll is out this morning and there is more bad news for Labour. It continues to lag behind the Conservative party by a mile.

Here are the state of the party figures.

Conservatives: 42% (no change from Guardian/ICM two weeks ago)

Labour: 27% (up 1)

Ukip: 12% (down 1)

Lib Dems: 10% (no change)

Greens: 4% (down 1)

Conservative lead: 15 points (down 1)

These suggest Labour has made very modest progress in the last fortnight. But ICM also asked some questions about when people expect to see a Labour government, and they show the party falling back a little since September. Here are the figures.

Asked how soon they expect to see Labour return to government, people replied:

At the 2020 election: 15% (was 16% when ICM asked the same question in September)

At the 2025 election: 18% (was 20%)

Total by 2025: 33% (was 36%)

At the 2030 election: 13% (no change)

At the 2035 election: 3% (no change)

At the 2040 election: 2% (was 4%)

Later than this, or never: 10% (was 6%)

Don’t know: 39% (was 37%)

Yesterday President Trump revealed his own response to unpalatable poll findings. He tweeted:

Luckily John McDonnell, the shadow chancellor, has a more sensible approach. Asked about Labour’s poor position in the polls at the weekend, he reverted to the standard political response, optimism, and insisted that over the next 12 months the party could turn the situation around.

The poll also contained some questions about Brexit and about the government’s relations with Trump. I will post those later this morning.

ICM Unlimited interviewed an online sample of 1,984 adults aged 18+ on 3-5 February 2017. Interviews were conducted across the country and the results have been weighted to the profile of all adults. ICM is a member of the British Polling Council and abides by its rules.

Here is the agenda for the day.

10am: The Institute for Fiscal Studies launches its green budget.

10.30am: The Campaign Against Arms Trade launches a legal challenge against arms exports to Saudi Arabia.

10.45am: Digby Jones, the former CBI director general and former trade minister, gives evidence to the Commons international trade committee on post-Brexit trade options.

11.30am: The Home Office minister Brandon Lewis gives a speech on reform of the fire service to the Reform thinktank.

12.30pm: Sajid Javid, the communities secretary, is due to give a statement to MPs on his housing white paper.

Around 1.30pm: MPs resume the committee stage debate on the article 50 bill. Voting is due at around 4.30pm and at around 7.45pm.

After 2pm: The Scottish parliament debates a motion saying the article 50 bill should not proceed.

As usual, I will also be covering breaking political news as it happens, as well as bringing you the best reaction, comment and analysis from the web, although in the afternoon I will be focusing on the article 50 debate.

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

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
Anya Taylor-Joy ‘Threw Up’ The First Time She Recorded Princess Peach Lines For The Super Mario Bros. Movie
That does sound pretty intense.
Cinemablend
Cinemablend
I accidentally used hugelkultur to fill my deep planter – and it's saved me a small fortune on soil and my plants are thriving too
It turns out it's a genius, budget-friendly gardening method
Ideal Home
Ideal Home
‘I am in shock’: Woman goes to auction in rural Pennsylvania. Then she spots boxes labeled Chanel, Hermes, Cartier
Thrifting’s been all the rage for literally ages. There’s also been a bit of a thrifting renaissance thanks to the advent of TikTok popularizing thrift hauls. But when’s the last time you heard about an auction?
The Mary Sue
The Mary Sue
David Bowie Trailblazed the 'Everyday Exhibits' Trend in His '70s Living Room With A Retro Twist on Curated Clutter – It's Playful, Practical, and Replicable
A photo from 1971 shows that the musician was tapping into personality-led interiors long before they were a trend – experts say his look is the blueprint
Homes & Gardens
Homes & Gardens
McDonald’s burger prices vary a whopping 74% depending on where you live. Here is the cheapest state
The Big Arch burger contains 1,020 calories and 53 grams of protein and varies in price across the country
The Independent UK
The Independent UK
How to shop at the farmers’ market like a pro
Tips from experts on where to find the freshest fruits and veggies
The Guardian - US
The Guardian - US
Fourteen days free
Download the app
One app. One membership.
100+ trusted global sources.
Download on the AppStore Get it on Google Play