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

'Both sides need to compromise' on Brexit, says EU summit host– Politics live

Austrian Chancellor Sebastian Kurz arriving at the informal EU summit in Salzburg
Austrian Chancellor Sebastian Kurz arriving at the informal EU summit in Salzburg Photograph: Kerstin Joensson/AP

Afternoon summary

That’s all from me for today.

Thanks for the comments.

On his arrival at the EU summit the the Slovenia prime minister, Marjan Sarec, said he believed a deal with Britain over its withdrawal from EU was possible. He told reporters:

We hope there will be a deal. There is even a chance in October ... but we’ll see. It’s not just one negotiator - if Britain also support this ... it’s possible.

'Both sides need to compromise' on Brexit, says EU summit host Sebastian Kurz

EU leaders have started to arrive at the Salzburg summit. There is a live feed here where you can watch them going in.

Sebastian Kurz, the Austrian chancellor, told reporters that both sides would have to compromise. Austria currently holds the presidency of the EU, which means that his views carry more weight than they would in other circumstances. He said:

I don’t know what Theresa May is going to say tonight, but I’m in good contact with her. I think that, if we want to make a deal, both sides need to compromise. I think that Michel Barnier and we as the EU27, we want to do everything possible to avoid a hard Brexit. We stand ready to compromise. But we also expect that from the UK. So I hope in her speech today we will hear a step forward.

Tomorrow morning there will be the chance for the EU27 to discuss what she said this evening.

Sebastian Kurz, the Austrian chancellor
Sebastian Kurz, the Austrian chancellor Photograph: EU

Starmer accuses Raab of wasting his time on party politics when he should be focused on Brexit

Sir Keir Starmer, the shadow Brexit secretary, has just issued a public response to Dominic Raab’s letter challenging him over Labour’s stance on a second referendum. (See 4.36pm.)

Updated

This is from Sky’s Faisal Islam.

May will get better reception at Salzburg by being able to bypass Barnier, Hammond claims

Philip Hammond, the chancellor, has recorded a clip about the Salzburg summit for broadcasters. And in it he suggested that, by being able to bypass Michel Barnier, the EU’s chief Brexit negotiators, and deal with EU leaders directly, Theresa May could end up getting a more sympathetic response. He said:

Theresa May has got the opportunity today, for the first time since we tabled the Chequers proposals, to sit down with all 27 European Union member states, not talking through the commission, but talking directly to the politicians that represent the populations of the European Union member states to explain to them how this Chequers proposal will work, how it’s the right deal, not just for the UK but for the European Union as well. I’m very confident that talking directly to the political leaders of the member states, the prime minister will get that message across today.

Of course this is not going to be a decision making meeting today. But we’ve got a European council in October and confirmation today that we will have a special summit in November. And across that period of time I’m confident that we will be able to deliver for Britain this Chequers deal.

This reflects a long-held UK government belief that Barnier has somehow been gold-plating EU red lines (to mix colour metaphors) and that, if only Number 10 could deal directly with Angela Merkel and others, a deal would be much easier.

In Brussels this thinking as seen as delusional, not least because Barnier is bound by guidelines drafted by Merkel and her EU27 colleagues. The BBC’s Laura Kuenssberg alludes to that here.

Philip Hammond
Philip Hammond Photograph: BBC

Raab challenges Labour to rule out second referendum

Dominic Raab, the Brexit secretary, has written an open letter to his Labour shadow, Sir Keir Starmer, challenging him to say that Labour would rule out another referendum on Brexit.

Here is the key section.

It’s vital that the British people have clarity and honesty from their elected representatives and, as such, it’s incumbent on you to answer the following questions, to give people a clear sense of Labour’s position:

1. Will you respect the result of the referendum and rule out holding a second referendum?

2. Will you rule out delaying Brexit and extending Article 50?

3. If you propose to delay Brexit by extending Article 50, for how long?

4. What would the question be in your proposed second referendum?

5. All of this would require, as the original referendum did, legislation approved by both houses. When and how would you legislate for your proposed second referendum?

While we work to deliver the instruction of the British people and get the right Brexit deal, people across the United Kingdom will be rightly concerned that Labour’s approach would invite the worst deal and take the country back to square one.

And here is the full text.

Starmer has not responded formally, but a Labour source said:

Labour respects the result of the referendum and is not calling for a second referendum. With only weeks of Brexit negotiating time to go and no progress in sight, people would expect Dominic Raab to be getting on with the job of negotiating for Britain, not wasting time writing letters to the opposition.

Dominic Raab
Dominic Raab Photograph: Peter Nicholls/Reuters

This is from Sky’s Mark Stone.

A general view shows the old town and the castle of Salzburg.
A general view shows the old town and the castle of Salzburg. Photograph: Leonhard Foeger/Reuters

Talking of the EPP, they’ve just tweeted this.

This is from the BBC’s Laura Kuenssberg who’s in Salzburg.

Are People's Vote right to say there's a realistic chance of MPs voting for a second Brexit referendum?

Earlier I summarised the People’s Vote paper (pdf) arguing that there is a “clear and viable” route to a second referendum on Brexit and that there are at least six plausible scenarios that could lead to the Commons voting for one. (See 12.24pm.) It’s a substantial document. But is it a persuasive one?

Yes and no. On the plus side, it makes an important and under-appreciated point about the article 50 - that it can be delayed. When asked about a second referendum, one of Theresa May’s stock responses is to say that we’re leaving on 29 March and that’s it. But at the weekend the Sunday Times (paywall) reported that Philip Hammond, the chancellor, himself raised the prospect of delaying article 50 when the cabinet discussed Brexit last week. The paper also said Olly Robbins, May’s chief Brexit adviser, has raised the prospect in Brussels, where he was apparently told “Britain would have to make the request themselves.”

And the People’s Vote paper is right to say that, despite frequent claims that parliament would not have enough time to pass referendum legislation, in fact, when pushed, parliament can and does pass complicated legislation quickly.

So legislating for a referendum is certainly do-able. But, in practice, would the Commons ever vote for it? The People’s Vote paper gives six illustrations of how it could, but I can think of at least five weaknesses with their analysis.

1 - Scenarios 1 and 2 (see 12.24pm) argue that a general, declaratory vote in the Commons (ie, not on legislation) would lead to a referendum because it would be “seen as binding on the government”. But that is not necessarily true. Under the coalition the government regularly used to ignore votes on backbench motions, and this government has taken that further, routinely ignoring votes on opposition day motions. The paper also claims (scenario 2) that a vote after 21 January, under the terms of the “meaningful vote” amendment accepted by the government in June, could include an amendment demanding a referendum because the speaker could allow that. But the whole point of having a motion “in neutral terms” (as the June amendment specifies) is to ensure that this is not allowed. That is why Brexiters like Jacob Rees-Mogg were happy to accept the June amendment.

2 - Scenarios 4 and 5 are really just the same scenario - Theresa May changing her mind and ordering a second referendum. The prime minister has changed her mind in the past (eg, having a general election), but the paper probably glosses over just how improbable this would be given what May is saying about a second referendum now (eg, see 11.13am). Also, an announcement of this kind would probably trigger an immediate leadership challenger from Tory Brexiters.

3 - Scenario 6 involves a general election - but what guarantee is there that either of the two main parties would offer a second referendum? The Tories aren’t likely to (see above). And Labour has repeatedly said that it accepts the result of the 2016 referendum and that its policy would be pursue an alternative, slightly softer Brexit, not to abandon it altogether. There are people in the party would would like it to oppose Brexit wholesale, but Jeremy Corbyn and his allies don’t agree at all. In fact, many in the party think Corbyn would be quite happy for the UK to be out of the EU by the time he takes power so that EU rules don’t constrain his economic agenda. This leads on to a broader problem with the analysis.

4 - The People’s Vote paper ignores internal party politics. Most scenarios that involve the Commons voting for a second referendum assume Corbyn backing the idea, all the opposition parties voting in favour, and then a few Tories rebelling to help them over the line. Corbyn has not ruled out backing a second referendum, and there are some Tories in favour, but it is a mistake to think that the Labour party is united on this. Some of their MPs would certainly vote against a second referendum - remember, 15 of them advertised their pro-Brexit credentials in June by voting against an EEA amendment, when the party line was to abstain - and it is possible the Labour Brexiters would outnumber the Tory people’s voters. The People’s Vote paper points out that so far May has only lost two votes on Brexit in the Commons (on the Dominic Grieve “meaningful vote” amendment, and Phillip Lee’s relatively uncontentious amendment about the EEA medicines regulatory network.)

5 - Scenario 3, involving MPs tabling a referendum amendment to the EU withdrawal agreement bill, seems the most probable option. But a bill would only be introduced if MPs had backed the withdrawal agreement in the first place, meaning that the best justification for a second referendum (parliamentary deadlock) no longer applied.

Summary: A second referendum is certainly not impossible, and People’s Vote are right to highlight how straightforward it would be to suspend article 50. But their analysis downplays the parliamentary and political obstacles in the way, and to claim there are at least six “plausible” paths to a second referendum is probably stretching it a bit. “Conceivable” would probably be a more realistic description ...

Updated

Davis says Chequers plan is 'devoid of democracy'

Tomorrow David Davis, who resigned as Brexit secretary because he opposed the Chequers plan, will deliver a speech in Munich. But he has released some extracts in advance, and they suggest he is escalating his attacks on the prime minister’s plan. Here are the key points.

  • Davis says the Chequers plan is “a non-starter” and “devoid of democracy”.

For me, the Chequers plan was always a non-starter.

At Lancaster and Mansion House, the prime minister promised to return control over our law, our money and our borders. These promises were in our manifesto too. But the Chequers plan crosses on all of those red lines.

The EU is often correctly described as having a democratic deficit. But Chequers is devoid of democracy altogether.

  • He says it is “quite remarkable” for a government policy to be as unpopular as the Chequers plan.

We have been told that the Chequers proposal fulfils what the British people voted for. Well, I am afraid I simply do not buy that.

52% of British voters oppose the proposals. Only 18% approve. It is quite remarkable for a government policy to be that unpopular.

On this, Davis has a point. YouGov polls in July (pdf) found first 13% and then, 10 days later, 12% of people saying the Chequers proposal would be “good for Britain”. More than 40% said it would be bad for Britain, and roughly the same amount said they did not know. In the same month Deltapoll found 7% thought Chequers was the “best possible Brexit solution”, and another 13% saying it was “a good compromise”, against more than 50% saying they were opposed to it. That means that Chequers prior to implementation is more unpopular than the poll tax was prior to implementation.

  • He says that he and colleagues will “shortly” be presenting an alternative plan to Chequers “which will outline a more ambitious vision”. (This may well be similar to the alternative white paper originally drawn up by the Brexit department when Davis was in government that was published by the ConservativeHome website in instalments after being rejected by Theresa May.)
  • He claims the EU would benefit from having the UK as an economic competitor.

There are some who say that they fear the UK becoming an aggressive free trade economy on the edge of Europe. My former counterpart Michel Barnier asserted: “How can we allow UK companies to have a significant competitive edge against EU companies?”

My message here is also simple: it is not to fear, but instead embrace the opportunity that it will create for German workers, families and businesses large and small.

In the long run, the friendly economic competition between neighbours is massively beneficial; beneficial for the German companies whose supply chains will be provided with improved components from British factories; beneficial for the consumers of tomorrow, who will enjoy the fruits of a more competitive global economy; and beneficial for the students and entrepreneurs of all Europe.

European flags displayed on a street outside the Hofstallgasse, on the eve of the start of a two-day EU summit Salzburg.
European flags displayed on a street outside the Hofstallgasse, on the eve of the start of a two-day EU summit Salzburg. Photograph: Barbara Gindl/AFP/Getty Images

Theresa May will reject Michel Barnier’s revised Irish backstop border proposals at the Salzburg summit because the European Union is still insisting on customs checks down the Irish Sea if the two sides cannot strike a free trade agreement after Brexit.

The prime minister foreshadowed the argument she will make to the other EU leaders over dinner this evening in an article in Die Welt, published on Wednesday morning, which said that the proposed backstop was “unacceptable” because it did not respect “the constitutional and economic integrity of the UK”.

May will arrive in Salzburg this afternoon at an informal EU council which will May will address Brexit over dinner and where EU leaders will discuss the issue again at lunch on Thursday in May’s absence.

The prime minister will also hold bilateral meetings on Thursday with the European council president, Donald Tusk, and the Irish taoiseach, Leo Varadkar, as she seeks to end the impasse over the future of the UK’s only land border.

On Tuesday Barnier said he was making revised proposals as part of an attempt to ‘de-dramatise’ the issue, and tried to downplay them by describing them as “a set of technical checks and controls” and insisting that the EU respected the territorial integrity of the UK. (See 9.36am.)

Barnier added that the bulk of the checks, for customs, VAT and excise, and other regulations could take place away from border points - although he conceded that increased sanitary checks for livestock may have to be done at the frontier.

Theresa May's Brexit plan 'will need to be reworked', says EU chief

This is what Donald Tusk, the president of the European council, said about Brexit.

The Brexit negotiations are entering the decisive phase. Various scenarios are still possible today, but I would like to stress that some of Prime Minister May’s proposals from Chequers indicate a positive evolution in the UK’s approach, as well as a will to minimise the negative effects of Brexit.

By this I mean, among other things, the readiness to cooperate closely in the area of security and foreign policy.

On other issues, such as the Irish question or the framework for economic cooperation, the UK’s proposals will need to be reworked and further negotiated.

Today there is perhaps more hope, but there is surely less and less time.

Therefore every day that is left we must use for talks.

I would like to finalise them still this autumn.

This is what at tomorrow’s meeting of the 27 I will propose calling an additional summit around mid November.

And here are the main points.

  • Tusk said the UK plans for a future trade deal with the EU “need to be reworked”.
  • He said there was now “more hope [for a deal] but surely less and less time”.
  • He confirmed that there will be an emergency EU summit in mid November to finalise the Brexit deal.
Donald Tusk
Donald Tusk Photograph: EU

Updated

Donald Tusk, the president of the European council, has just spoken to the media in Salzburg. He confirmed that there would be a special EU summit to finalise the Brexit deal in November.

Donald Tusk, the president of the European council, is due to speak to journalists soon ahead of the Salzburg summit.

There will be a live feed here.

Mel Stride, the Treasury minister, told Sky’s All Out Politics this morning that pro-Brexit Tories might decide to back a deal based on Chequers rather than risk a second referendum.

Stride said:

When we have a firm deal on the table, I suspect that those to the right of the party - the pro-Brexit wing - will be very concerned that if that deal does not prevail, they will end up in the situation where we could have a second referendum or we could end up not leaving the EU altogether, so there is a danger of that happening if Chequers does not prevail. I think those on the other end of the spectrum will equally be very concerned that if Chequers does not prevail, we could end up in a no-deal situation.

Sky’s Beth Rigby thinks Stride’s message was not very subtle.

Tony Connelly, RTE’s Europe editor, has written a very good blog this morning explaining in detail what Michel Barnier, the EU’s chief Brexit negotiator, means when he talks about offering the UK an improved offer on the Irish backstop. (See 9.36am.)

Do read it in full, but essentially Connelly says Barnier told EU ministers last night that, under the backstop plan, there would have to be four types of checks on goods going between Britain (outside the customs union and single market) and Northern Ireland (which would effectively remain inside). They would be customs checks, VAT and excise duty checks, regulatory checks and sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) checks.

But only the SPS checks would have to take place at the border, Barnier said. All others could be done using technology and advance declarations, eliminating the need for inspections at the border.

Connelly goes on:

According to a senior EU official, Mr Barnier explained that such checks already exist on live animals moving across the Irish Sea, but that at present only 10% of consignments are checked.

“This would have to increase substantially,” the official told RTÉ News.

Mr Barnier also told EU ministers that the new set of checks and controls would only be required on between 40p% and 45% of the trade moving between Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

That is because, according to the chief negotiator, the remaining percentage moves through Dublin.

In a post-Brexit scenario these goods would be subject to checks anyway.

People's Vote claim there are 'six plausible scenarios' leading to second referendum

People’s Vote, which is campaigning for a referendum on the final Brexit deal, has published a 29-page paper today (pdf) setting out a “roadmap to a People’s Vote”. The conventional wisdom at Westminster is that, although a second referendum is not totally inconceivable, the practical obstacles are so formidable as to make the chances of it actually happening very slim. This is important because, if people assume that an idea is a non-starter (just as if people assume a political party has no chance of winning), then mobilising support for it is hard.

The document has been written by Lord Kerr, the diplomat credited with drafting article 50 in the first place, and the list of people who have submitted advice reads like a Who’s Who of Britain’s constitutional experts. It’s a serious document, summarised here.

Essentially the document makes two main arguments.

  • It says the UK would easily be able to suspend article 50 (the process underway leading to the UK leaving the EU on 29 March 2019). The EU’s own legal experts have said so, it says. And it says EU leaders would be happy to see the article 50 process to be extended to allow time for a referendum, if it could not be held before the end of March.

The People’s Vote campaign is in regular contact with politicians and officials from across Brussels and key European capitals. In our conversations it has been made clear repeatedly that there would be no difficulty about obtaining an extension for a defined period sufficient to permit consulting the people in a democratic vote. Should the UK need to request such an extension to allow for a public consultation to approve a deal, we are confident it would be granted. Therefore, it is our clear conclusion that there is no obstacle either in the politics or the procedure of Brexit to the UK delaying the March 29th 2019 deadline if this delay was judged necessary by Parliament in order to consult the people in a democratic vote.

  • It claims there are “at least six plausible scenarios” under which parliament could end up voting for another referendum. It says:

First, MPs could amend the motion put forward by the government if/when it presents its deal to parliament. The vote on this motion is expected to take place shortly after agreement has been reached with the EU. An amendment from the opposition, Conservative backbenchers or cross-party (if allowed by the speaker) could require that the deal be subject to a People’s Vote.

Second, in the event of that motion being rejected by parliament, or there being no final deal between the UK and EU by January 21st 2019, the government is committed to tabling a statement on how it intends to proceed. Parliament will have an opportunity to vote on this in the form of a motion. It will be for the speaker to determine whether or not that motion is in “neutral terms” and therefore whether it is amendable. Should it be determined that it is not in neutral terms then a people’s vote amendment could be proposed and voted on.

Third, if the government’s motion on the deal has passed, the government will have to legislate for its implementation through an Act of Parliament. This European Union (withdrawal agreement) bill would be subject to amendments throughout its passage through parliament, meaning an amendment could be passed that would make the bill conditional on approval of a People’s Vote.

Fourth, the prime minister could decide that with the Labour party and many Conservative MPs threatening to vote down her deal, the only way to secure a mandate for it is to put it to the public through a people’s vote. She may choose to do this proactively or reactively after her deal has been rejected by the House of Commons.

Fifth, it also possible that having failed to secure a deal with the EU, the prime minister decides to put to the people the decision over whether the UK should leave the EU with no deal. Such a decision would be a last resort and would likely come late in the article 50 process, following failed attempts to force a change of position from the EU.

Sixth, a people’s vote could be legislated for following a snap general election. This outcome today seems very unlikely, but it is not inconceivable. The most plausible route to an election would be for the prime minister to seek one, and to secure the necessary two-thirds majority in the House of Commons. Any other routes to an election would require Conservative and/or Democratic Unionist party MPs to vote to bring down the government and are therefore extremely unlikely.

There is quite a lot to say about the strengths and weaknesses of this argument. I will post more on it soon.

Updated

Michael Gove, the Brexiter environment secretary, has told the Press Association that he thinks the UK will get a good Brexit deal. Asked if he thought the latest offer from the EU on Northern Ireland was going to progress the talks (see 9.36am), Gove replied:

I’m a stubborn optimist, I’m glad EU leaders are talking, I’m glad they’re hearing from our prime minister and I hope we will get a good deal at the end of the process.

Sadly, the Press Association don’t seem to have asked him whether he agrees with David Davis’s assessment of him that he is so clever that he misses the obvious. (See 10.24am.)

This is from Yahoo’s Brussels correspondent, Luke James.

May says UK has already had 'people's vote' and second referendum would 'destroy trust in politicians'

Theresa May has two Brexit-related articles in the papers today. She has written an article about the UK’’s stance for the German paper, Die Welt. As my colleague Daniel Boffey reports, in it she attacks criticisms tabled by Michel Barnier of her Chequers proposals, claiming the EU negotiator’s arguments are out of step with reality and make unacceptable demands on the British government.

She has also given an interview to the Daily Express. In it, she restates her opposition to allowing a vote on the final Brexit deal. She says:

When the referendum took place, we gave people the opportunity to make a choice. They made that choice. If we as politicians want people to trust us, then we have to deliver for them on that.

This was probably the biggest exercise in democracy in our country’s history. If we were to go back on that vote, it would destroy trust in politicians.

The parliamentary vote to give the choice to the people wasn’t a close run thing, a five to one or six to one vote to say to the public it’s your choice.

People weren’t saying it’s the choice of the public except if we disagree with the answer we’ll ask them again. It was the public’s choice. My answer to the People’s Vote is that we’ve had the people’s vote – it was the referendum – and now we should deliver on it.

UPDATE: It wasn’t just Die Welt; the May article was sent to a range of European newspapers, I’m told.

Updated

Theresa May has just finished delivering his housing speech. Number 10 briefed out a large chunk of it overnight, but my colleague Peter Walker was listening and he has tweeted out some new lines.

'Clever men miss the obvious' - Davis rejects Gove's argument for backing Chequers

David Davis, who resigned as Brexit secretary because he could not accept the Chequers plan for Brexit, told the Today programme this morning that EU leaders would come out with “warm words” for Theresa May at Salzburg but that “they won’t give much”.

He said he expected the EU to demand more from the UK, and that May would end up with “a deal she won’t be able to bring back to the House of Commons because it’ll be lumbered with loads of other EU demands”. At that point May would have to try something else, he said.

I think we get to a point where she will not be able to accept what they offer, they will not be able to accept what she offers, and there’ll have to have some sort of reset. The reset is to step back to what Donald Tusk offered in March - he said you can have a free trade agreement.

In the interview Davis was also asked about the suggestion from Michael Gove, the environment secretary, that MPs should accept a Chequers-based deal because, once out of the EU, the UK could always revisit it. He replied:

Michael Gove is a very clever man, and sometimes clever men miss the obvious. The very obvious point is we have a negotiating lever today. We have 39bn of them - the £39bn contribution we’re going to make in the withdrawal agreement. Once we’ve signed that away, our negotiating leverage evaporates and we will not get it straightened out.

If he wants an example, look at what’s happened to Switzerland. Every time Switzerland tries to get something material changed [in its relationship with the EU], it comes down to a threat of the whole thing being cancelled and it collapses.

David Davis
David Davis Photograph: Dan Kitwood/Getty Images

Updated

On the Today programme this morning James Brokenshire, the housing secretary, was asked who Theresa May is referring to when she talks of politicians who look down on people living in social housing. (See 9.17am.) “I think it’s more a sort of a greater public perception, sadly,” he replied.

When asked if there were Conservative politicians who took that view, he said May was referring to a “general stigma” which he said was a feeling among tenants who were consulted for a government policy paper. He went on:

I think home ownership absolutely is a really core credo of what I believe and what the party believes, and I don’t think there’s this, almost, like, a false dichotomy of it being one thing or the other - social housing or actually seeing home ownership as well. I think we can do both.

Britain’s inflation rate has jumped to 2.7% in August, putting a squeeze on households again, my colleague Graeme Wearden reports. He has all the details on his business live blog.

DUP rejects Barnier's 'improved' offer on Irish backstop

Turning back to Brexit, last night Michel Barnier, the EU’s chief Brexit negotiator said that the EU was willing to “improve” its offer to the UK on the Irish backstop. In a press statement he said:

Our proposal for the backstop on Ireland and Northern Ireland has been on the table since February.

It is an insurance policy to avoid a hard border between Ireland and Northern Ireland, whatever the future relationship will bring.

It reflects our agreement with the UK in December 2017, confirmed by Prime Minister Theresa May in her letter to President Tusk in March.

We are ready to improve this proposal.

Work on the EU side is ongoing.

We are clarifying which goods arriving into Northern Ireland from the rest of the UK would need to be checked and where, when and by whom these checks could be performed.

We can also clarify that most checks can take place away from the border, at the company premises or in the market.

We need to de-dramatise the checks that are needed and that are caused by the UK’s decision to leave the EU, its Single Market and customs union.

What we need in the Withdrawal Agreement is a legally operational backstop, which fully respects the territorial integrity of the UK.

As Jennifer Rankin and Pippa Crerar point out in their overnight story, Barnier’s offer was in fact a limited one. He is not accepting the UK plan for a backstop, and, in so far as he is making a concession, it seems to be more a matter of tone than substance.

But this morning the DUP, which is helping to prop up Theresa May’s minority government, has again rejected his approach. Nigel Dodds, the party’s deputy leader, says Barnier is proposing “still means a border down the Irish Sea”.

Nigel Dodds
Nigel Dodds Photograph: Paul Davey / Barcroft Images

Theresa May tells Tories not to look down on people in social housing

On the day Theresa May became prime minister she gave a short speech in Downing Street saying that her mission would be to fight “burning injustice” and to champion those families who are “just managing”. Since then these aspirations have almost vanished from her political agenda, submerged by Brexit, but occasionally this anti-elitist, surprisingly lefty side of May resurfaces and it will again today when she gives a speech urging her party to abandon its bias against people who live in social housing. As well as announcing an extra £2bn for housing associations, she will say:

For many people, a certain stigma still clings to social housing. Some residents feel marginalised and overlooked, and are ashamed to share the fact that their home belongs to a housing association or local authority.

And on the outside, many people in society – including too many politicians – continue to look down on social housing and, by extension, the people who call it their home ...

We should never see social housing as something that need simply be “good enough”, nor think that the people who live in it should be grateful for their safety net and expect no better.

Whether it is owned and managed by local authorities, TMOs [tenant management organisations] or housing associations, I want to see social housing that is so good people are proud to call it their home … Our friends and neighbours who live in social housing are not second-rate citizens.

The Daily Telegraph, ever sensitive to the politics of property, has splashed on her comments, pointing out that there is an implied rebuke to Margaret Thatcher, who fetishised (my word, not theirs) home ownership. When May talked about “too many politicians”, she is not referring primarily to the opposition.

May is delivering her speech this morning. But soon afterwards she, and the news agenda, will be sucked back into the Brexit vortex as she heads to Austria for the informal summit of EU leaders at Salzburg. I will post more on that shortly.

Here is the agenda for the day.

9.30am: Inflation figures are released.

10.15am: Theresa May gives a speech to the national housing summit. As Peter Walker reports, she will announce £2bn in extra money for housing associations over a decade, arguing that secure long-term funding for new schemes is one of the key ways to ease the housebuilding crisis.

Afternoon: May and other EU leaders arrive in Salzburg in Austria for the start of an informal EU summit.

As usual, I will also be covering breaking political news as it happens, as well as bringing you the best reaction, comment and analysis from the web. I plan to post a summary at lunchtime and another when I wrap up, probably at around 6pm.

Here is the Politico Europe round-up of this morning’s political news. And here is the PoliticsHome list of today’s top 10 must-reads.

If you want to follow me or contact me on Twitter, I’m on @AndrewSparrow.

I try to monitor the comments BTL but normally I find it impossible to read them all. If you have a direct question, do include “Andrew” in it somewhere and I’m more likely to find it. I do try to answer direct questions, although sometimes I miss them or don’t have time.

If you want to attract my attention quickly, it is probably better to use Twitter.

Updated

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
Fact check: Are FaZe Banks and Kendall Jenner dating? viral photo sparks buzz after alleged sighting
A viral claim about FaZe Banks and Kendall Jenner dating is false. The image that started the rumor was edited using AI, as confirmed by the original X post. There is no real proof linking them. Both have separate dating histories, but currently, no verified information suggests any relationship between…
The Times of India
The Times of India
Hey, Netflix, Stop Suggesting Movies To Me I Can't Watch With My Plan (You're Not Amazon!)
Hoo boy, this set me off.
Cinemablend
Cinemablend
I’m Getting Stressed Out Just Hearing Jack Black’s Take On What It’s Like Hosting SNL
Feels like the only show that could rattle Jack Black!
Cinemablend
Cinemablend
Disclosure day: If ET made contact, how would we handle the news?
How would people react if an alien civilization actually made contact with us? Space.com talked to experts, who shared a variety of opinions about a possible real-life "disclosure day."
Space
Space
No one at Waffle House remembers Trump’s FEMA official who claims he was teleported there
None of the two dozen workers and regulars interviewed by The New York Times noticed any metaphysical activity
The Independent UK
The Independent UK
Three-week-old mountain lion cub rescued by California biologists
Crimson, seen alone in Santa Monica mountains for days, gets care in Oakland zoo after mother nowhere to be found
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