Summary
- Sir Alan Duncan, the deputy foreign secretary, has reaffirmed the government’s intention to host President Trump on a state visit at the end of a three-hour debate that saw MPs denounce him as unworthy of the honour. The debate, which took place in Westminster Hall, was prompted by the petition signed by 1.8m people saying Trump should be denied a state visit and it was opened by the Labour MP Paul Flynn who, in a wide-ranging attack, described Trump’s intellect as “protozoan”. (See 4.42pm.) MPs divided almost entirely along party lines, with Conservative MPs defending the decision to invite Trump (if not defending his policies), but opposition MPs criticising Trump much more aggressively, and arguing that the honour of a state visit was unmerited. But, wrapping up for government, Duncan said that state visits were the government’s “most important diplomatic tool” and he made it clear that the government expected the invitation to boost Britain’s diplomatic interests. He told MPs:
A state visit is a uniquely British construct. No other country is able to offer a state visit in quite the same way as we do. It is distinctively British. And over the course of her reign Her Majesty has hosted over 100 of them. All such visits are a rare and prestigious occasion. But they are also our most important diplomatic tool. They enable us to strengthen and influence those international relationships that are of the greatest strategic importance to this country.
The debate ended without MPs voting on whether the visit should go ahead and the debate will have no impact on the government’s plans. But, alongside the parallel Stop Trump protests taking place in Parliament Square and in other British cities this evening, it illustrated just how much opposition Trump will face when he arrives on British soil. Duncan ended his speech saying he hoped Trump would get a “polite and generous” welcome. (See 7.20pm.) Tonight that sounded optimistic, to put it mildly.
- Theresa May took the highly unusual decision to watch the House of Lords begin debating the bill to start the process of leaving the EU, as her most senior minister in the upper chamber warned peers not to try to alter the terms of Brexit. As Rowena Mason reports, the prime minister sat on the steps of the throne in the Lords for the opening of the debate, which is considering the Brexit bill to give the prime minister the power to trigger article 50. MPs are not allowed to sit on the main benches of the Lords but May is permitted to watch proceedings from the steps of the throne as a privy counsellor. In practice, this rarely happens. The rule book states that the steps in front of the throne, where the monarch sits when delivering the Queen’s speech, are allowed to be occupied by observers.
That’s all from me for tonight.
Thanks for the comments.
Updated
Stop Trump has been tweeting and retweeting pictures on its Twitter feed of some of the various anti-Trump protests taking place this afternoon.
@UKStopTrump going well in Cardiff! pic.twitter.com/q7UPw8B0Zt
— Rebekah Tune (@mrstune) February 20, 2017
Hundreds turn out at #stoptrump protest in Newcastle https://t.co/KZQrMm1YdE pic.twitter.com/IvAUH0uE3a
— The Chronicle (@ChronicleLive) February 20, 2017
Some pictures from the protest in Canterbury! @OwenJones84 @1daywithoutusuk can we get an RT? #stoptrump #1DayWithoutUs pic.twitter.com/JsQeqJSHpt
— Jack Brooks (@jackbrooks248) February 20, 2017
Protesters chant the Welsh national anthem #Cardifftrump #stoptrump #TrumpProtest #resisttrump pic.twitter.com/CIs4UcfSGQ
— InterCardiff (@intercardiff) February 20, 2017
Check out the choir in Parliament Square #StopTrump pic.twitter.com/3IVIbgGg5V
— Owen Jones (@OwenJones84) February 20, 2017
MPs cannot hold a debate without having a motion to debate. And when they are not debating a substantive proposition, they debate a technical motion, such as that this House do not adjourn, or that this House has considered the matter of X, Y or Z.
At the end of this debate Andrew Turner, the chair, put the motion that this House has considered the two Trump petitions to a vote by acclamation. Some MPs shouted aye, but many more shouted no - effectively registering a symbolic protest about Trump’s visit. But there was not a proper division, and their voting down the motion by acclamation does not carry any weight.
I’ll post a summary shortly.
The Labour MP Paul Flynn is winding up the debate now. He says this debate has enabled parliament to represent the views of the people.
MPs have shown that they are responding to the anger people feel about Trump’s visit, he says. He says it is a good day for parliament.
Duncan says the visit should happen and will happen. And, when it does, he trusts that Britain will extend a “polite and generous” welcome to the American president.
Sir Alan Duncan, the deputy foreign secretary, is winding up now. He is responding to the debate on behalf of the government.
He says state visits are uniquely British events. They are also important weapons in the diplomatic armoury.
He says the relationship with the US is based around a common language and common interests. It is a special relationship.
We believe we should use all the tools at our disposal to build common ground with President Trump.
He says the relationship with the US transcends political parties. And it is bigger than personalities, he says.
He says Theresa May’s visit to Washington identified many areas of common interest. And the state visit will allow these to be deepened, he says.
Labour’s Seema Malhotra says giving Trump a state visit will be seen as an endorsement of Trump’s policy.
Duncan says he understands this point. He will address it.
President George W Bush and President Obama both got a state visit in their first term of office. So it is appropriate that Trump should get one too.
He says the issue of whether or not Trump addresses parliament is premature. Trump has not asked to give a speech in parliament, and the issue has not even been discussed, he says.
West says offering Trump a state visit at this point was “an error of judgment”.
If the visit does go ahead, Trump should not be invited to give a speech in Westminster Hall, she says.
She says she supports what John Bercow, the Commons speaker, said about this. (Two weeks ago Bercow said he would block Trump being allowed to give a speech in Westminster Hall.)
The Labour MP Catherine West, a shadow Foreign Office minister, is winding up now for the opposition.
She says going ahead with a state visit, while Trump is still proceeding with his travel ban, would send the wrong message to the White House.
He says there are citizens of the countries affected by the travel ban living in MPs’ constituencies.
She says she thinks it would be a good idea for a Commons committee to review the approach taken to state visits. That might protect Theresa May from what happened this time, when a state visit was offered only for Trump to take London by surprise with his announcement of the travel ban.
The SNP MP Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh says that Trump posted a tweet in 2012 saying it would be acceptable taking nude photographs of the Duchess of Cambridge. Any family would not want to welcome someone into their home after a remark like that, she says. So why should the royal family have to put up with him?
The Labour MP Liam Byrne says he is a great supporter of America. He was a Fulbright scholar, and spent two years in the country. He says he admires America for its qualities like generosity. But Trump does not reflect those values.
This week it is Washington Day, marking George Washington’s birthday. It was said Washington could not tell a lie. With Trump, it is as if he cannot tell the truth, Byrne says.
He says he fears that, if Trump’s visit goes ahead, it will be divisive. The protests will make today’s demonstration look like a tea party.
And people in America will see the demonstrations and think that they say something about that Britons think of America, not what they think about Trump.
He accepts it is probably too late to withdraw the offer of a state visit now. But if the visit must go ahead, it should be short, he says. It certainly won’t be sweet.
The Labour MP Dawn Butler says she represents Brent Central in London, one of the most diverse constituencies in Europe.
She says it is often said that when America sneezes, Europe catches a cold. But now the US has a “pretty nasty virus”, she says.
She says people are protesting outside Westminster because they feel so strong about Trump.
According to the SNP MP Patrick Grady, the demonstration can be heard in Westminster Hall, where the debate is taking place.
Noise from #StopTrump demo can be heard in Wmin Hall as #TrumpPetition debate continues. While business in main chamber finishing early.
— Patrick Grady (@GradySNP) February 20, 2017
Updated
The Lib Dem MP Alistair Carmichael, the former Scottish secretary, says he thinks Theresa May got it “catastrophically wrong” offering President Trump a state visit on her first trip to Washington. If we are offering Trump a state visit now, what will we offer him next when we need a favour? The crown jewels?
Carmichael says he thinks May was spooked by pictures of Nigel Farage, the former Ukip leader, getting to visit Trump in Trump Tower before any other British politician.
The MP chairing the proceedings has just cut the time limit for speeches down to four minutes.
Updated
The Financial Times’ Jim Pickard has spotted this rather odd placard at the anti-Trump protest outside the Commons.
Today is apparently weird placard day. pic.twitter.com/ucuFA3Gl39
— Jim Pickard (@PickardJE) February 20, 2017
The Labour MP Daniel Zeichner, who represents Cambridge, says 9,000 people in his constituency have signed the petition saying Trump should not get a state visit. That is about one in 10 of his constituents, he says.
He says MPs must respond to concerns expressed on this scale.
Cambridge is an outward-looking, tolerant place, he says. He says Trump’s values are quite different.
He says the invitation for a state visit should be withdrawn.
I have beefed up some of the earlier posts now with direct quotes from the Press Association’s report of the debate. But, to get those to show up, you may need to refresh the page.
Main says comments like Paul Flynn’s earlier about President Trump having a “protozoan” intellect (see 4.42pm) are hugely disrespectful to an ally.
The Conservative MP Anne Main is speaking now. She says she does not know what the Queen thinks about the visit, but she assumes that the invitation was offered with the Queen’s consent.
Main may not know what the Queen thinks about this all, but Private Eye, the British satirical magazine, has had a good guess.
Millions sign petition to stop Trump state visit. The new Eye is out now. pic.twitter.com/8BBFWGGkYD
— Private Eye Magazine (@PrivateEyeNews) February 8, 2017
The Labour MP Tulip Siddiq is speaking now. She says she is the daughter of an asylum seeker, was brought up in a Muslim household and is a woman with strong views. She is not President Trump’s sort of person, she says.
She says the issue is about whether or not Trump deserves a royal visit. MPs have to listen to their constituents who are saying he is not entitled to this honour, she says.
Sir Edward Leigh, a Conservative, says he does not think the travel ban is racist. Indonesia is the country with the biggest Muslim population in the world, but it is not covered, he says.
He says Trump was elected president. Our interests depend on trying to influence this man, and tying him to our point of view, he says. He says Trump would never be elected in this country. But he was elected in the US, we have to work with him, and cancelling the state visit would be a “disaster”.
Here is the Press Association report of the anti-Trump demonstration outside the Houses of Parliament.
Hundreds of protesters gathered outside Parliament as MPs began debating Donald Trump’s state visit to Britain.
In a packed Westminster Hall, MPs were considering Theresa May’s decision to extend the invitation to the US president in a debate being held in response to petitions signed by millions of Britons.
Anti-Trump chants were heard from Parliament Square before the debate, and appeared to die down as Labour MP Paul Flynn opened proceedings.
MPs were debating a petition signed by more than 1.85 million people, calling for the visit to be stripped of the trappings of a state occasion in order to avoid causing “embarrassment” to the Queen ...
The Stop Trump coalition has called a nationwide day of action and dozens of protests have been co-ordinated by the One Day Without Us movement celebrating the contribution of immigrants to British society.
The rally in Parliament Square, which organisers claimed will attract more than 20,000 people, will be addressed by speakers including joint Green Party leader Caroline Lucas and comic Shappi Khorsandi.
Celebrities backing the action include singer Paloma Faith, who said: “I’m backing the protests because I believe in human rights and compassion and Trump evidently does not.”
Calls for the state visit to be cancelled have been backed by London mayor Sadiq Khan, who hit out at the president’s “cruel and shameful” policies.
Khan said the controversial tycoon’s travel ban aimed at people from seven Muslim-majority countries, which has run into trouble in the US courts, and the suspension of refugee admissions were reasons not to be “rolling out the red carpet”.
Jon Sopel, the BBC’s North America editor, says coverage of this debate in America is wrongly suggesting that there is a possibility of the state visit being withdrawn. FAKE NEWS, as the man himself would say on Twitter. As I explained earlier, that is not the case. (See 4.32pm.)
MPs debate on @realDonaldTrump #StateVisit getting a lot of play in US, leaving impression it could be called off. It can't and won't be
— Jon Sopel (@BBCJonSopel) February 20, 2017
Blunt says the state visit offer should not be withdrawn. But there is no need for it to go ahead this year, he says. He says a better time would be in 2020, which will be the 400th anniversary of the Pilgrim Fathers, he says.
Crispin Blunt, the Conservative MP who chairs the Commons foreign affairs committee, says that withdrawing the invitation to a state visit would put the Queen in an embarrassing position.
He says he thinks that Theresa May used the offer of a state visit to enable her to become the first foreign leader to visit President Trump in the White House. During that visit she got Trump to confirm his backing for Nato, he says.
The SNP’s Joanna Cherry asks Blunt who told him that May used the state visit offer to secure her invitation to the White House.
Blunt says he has not been told that this is what happened. But he is making that assumption based on his knowledge of how these matters work. (Blunt used to be a special adviser in the Foreign Office.)
Alex Salmond, the SNP MP and former Scottish first minister, says it is a mistake to think that Trump will do anything for the UK as a favour. He will only do what is in his interests, Salmond says.
Blunt says Trump can be made to change his mind. He says he was assured by contacts that Trump was going to remove protections for LGBT people. But that did not happen, he says.
Naz Shah, the Labour MP for Bradford West, who is Muslim, says she needs to represent the views of her many constituents who are opposed to President Trump because of his stance on Muslims.
She says people have argued that the Chinese president received a state visit despite China’s human rights record. But people in the UK do not look to China as a beacon for human rights. People do think of the US and the UK as having shared values, she says. Yet President Trump does not support those values, she says.
She says, as a Muslim, she is not a threat to Western democracy. But Trump implies that Muslims are the enemy, she says.
That is me as a Muslim in this House. I am not an enemy to Western democracy, I am part of Western democracy. I fought my election really hard, I fought against all those things - the bigotry, the sexism, the patriarchy - to earn my place in this House.
By allowing Donald Trump a state visit and bringing out the crockery, the china, the red carpet, what we are doing is endorsing all those views, all those things that I fought hard against, and saying ‘you know what, it’s OK’.
She says he should not be honoured with a state visit.
Updated
Sir Simon Burns, a Conservative former minister, tells MPs that he is a strong opponent of Trump’s. He is an American politics enthusiast, and a passionate Democrat, and he actively supported Hilary Clinton. But he thinks the government has to decide what is in the national interest. Having a good relationship with Washington is essential, he says.
What we have got to do is look at what is going to be most helpful for Britain, for its future policy and development, and I think it is a no brainer that working closer with the United States is far more important for this country, particularly as we begin negotiations and the exit from the EU in two, two and a half years’ time.
We cannot afford to be isolated and to ignore our friends.
Updated
The Stop Trump coalition, which is organising protests for when President Trump visits the UK, has been holding a demonstration outside parliament this afternoon.
Here are some pictures from the protest.
The Labour MP Stephen Doughty says what worries him most about President Trump are his attacks on the US constitution.
The Conservative MP James Cartlidge is speaking now. He says MPs are debating a foreign policy issue. And they should be calmly considering what is in the country’s best interests.
If we have concerns about Trump’s policies, we should raise them with him, Cartlidge. He says the offer of a state visit cannot be withdrawn now.
He says, if the offer were withdrawn now, the person who would be most happy would be Vladimir Putin, because the Russian president wants to divide the west.
He says he would favour offering Putin a state visit. Putin might do terrible things. But the important thing for the UK is to exert as much influence as possible, he says.
I’ll tell you who will win [if the invitation is withdrawn]- there’s one man, and that’s Vladimir Putin.
There will be smiles all round in the Kremlin if we follow this petition because the one thing they want in the Kremlin above all else is to divide the West.
They want the UK and US divided, they do not want a strong transatlantic partnership - that’s not just in our interests but in the global interest.
We would be crackers to do so.
Indeed, having said all that, I would offer a state visit to Vladimir Putin - as was done by Tony Blair.
Cartlidge says withdrawing the state visit would make the UK “a laughing stock”.
Updated
Alex Salmond, the SNP MP and former Scottish first minister, goes next. He criticises Theresa May’s “fawning” approach to Trump when she went to visit him in Washington.
It is difficult to know whether to be appalled at the morality or astonished at the stupidity of the invitation.
As an example of fawning subservience Theresa May’s holding hands across the ocean visit would be difficult to match. To do it in the name of shared values was stomach churning. Which are the shared values that president Trump has been exemplifying in his first thirty days in office?
As an exercise in stupidity the offer of a state visit was beyond compare. Even when people are in a weak negotiating position it is as well not to advertise it so blatantly, and negotiating a trade deal with Donald Trump from a position of weakness is a recipe for disaster.
Justin Trudeau like Theresa May is a new prime minister. Yet he has demonstrated how to pursue a business relationship while keeping Canada’s integrity intact. Mrs May should take note and rescind the state visit forthwith before any further embarrassment and division is caused.
Referring to reports saying Trump does not want to meet Prince Charles during the state visit, in case the prince brings up climate change, Salmond says Trump must be the first person invited on a state visit who tries to pick which royals he will meet.
He says he dealt with Trump when he was Scotland’s first minister and he knows that offering Trump a state visit from a position of weakness will be “a disaster”.
From my experience of negotiating with Donald Trump, let me tell the honourable member, never ever do it from a weak position because the result will be total disaster.
He says the offer should be rescinded.
Updated
Julian Lewis, the Conservative MP who chairs the Commons defence committee, is speaking now. He asks MPs to consider the possibility that inviting President Trump to the UK could get him to firm up his support for Nato. If that were the case, what is more important, he asks: condemning him, or doing what Theresa May did, and reaching out to Trump in the hope of winning him over and getting him to reaffirm his support for Nato.
If you knew that it’d make a significant difference to bringing him on side to continue with the policies that prevented a conflagration on that scale, do you really think it is more important to berate him, castigate him and encourage him to retreat into some sort of bunker rather than to do what the prime minister did, perhaps more literally than any of us expected, which is to take him by the hand and try and lead him down the paths of righteousness?
Because I have no doubt at all about this matter. What really matters to the future of Europe is that transatlantic alliance continues and should prosper.
There’s every prospect of that happening providing we reach out to this inexperienced individual and try and persuade him - and there’s every chance of persuading him that he should continue with the policy pursued by his predecessors.
The Liberal Democrat MP Alistair Carmichael asks Lewis what evidence he has that the state visit will have this impact. Just this weekend Trump cast doubt on his support for Nato, Carmichael says.
Lewis says Trump is right about wanting Nato countries to contribute more to defence.
If Trump’s threat to withdraw support for countries that do not pay their full contribution to Nato is what it takes to get them to pay up, then he may go down as the person who saved Nato, he says.
Updated
David Lammy, the Labour MP and former minister, goes next. He says he loves the United States. He studied there, and has visited the country more often than France, he says.
An official visit may have been appropriate, he says. But to offer President Trump a state visit after just seven days in office was wrong, he says.
He says Trump has has the support of the Ku Klux Klan. He thinks of his children, and how to explain to them that someone who talks of grabbing pussy gets a state visit.
And presidents like Kennedy did not get a state visit, he says. So why should Trump?
There are many African Americans in American sitting at home in fear, they are concerned about the president who has had the support of the Ku Klux Klan.
They are concerned about the president that has welcomed white supremacists - it’s a term we hoped would almost fall into history - into his close inner circle.
That Britain should abandon all its principles and afford this man a state visit after seven days - really? Why? Because this great country is so desperate for a trade deal that we would throw all of our own history out of the window?
We didn’t do this for Kennedy, we didn’t do this for Truman, we didn’t do this for Reagan, but for this man, after seven days, we say please come and we will lay on everything because we are so desperate for your company.
I think this country is greater than that. I think my children deserve better than that. I think my daughter deserves better than that.
I’m ashamed frankly that it has come to this.
He says Trump has put people in fear. He should not get a state visit, Lammy says.
UPDATE: Lammy has tweeted this.
Just spoke against Trump's state visit. This country is better than this. My children, especially my daughter, deserve better than this. pic.twitter.com/v52ndYSqMc
— David Lammy (@DavidLammy) February 20, 2017
Updated
Nigel Evans, a rightwing Conservative, is speaking now. He says the experts did not expect Donald Trump to be elected.
We have to ask ourselves why is it that people felt so left behind that they made the democratic decisions that they have which we think we can’t understand - how could you possibly vote for Brexit? How could you possibly vote for Donald Trump?
The fact is that the people have. These were the forgotten people. Just like we had the forgotten people in the United Kingdom, there are the forgotten people in the United States of America.
But Trump won, Evans says, and he is delivering on his promises. He may be the only politician to do this, he says.
He is going to go down in history as being roundly condemned as the only politician to deliver on his promises.
Evans says he does not support all Trump’s policies.
But he says he has seen no evidence that Trump is racist.
And he says, if MPs attack Trump, they are attacking the 60-odd million Americans who voted for him.
He says the trolling of Melania Trump (Trump’s wife) and Barron Trump (his son) on social media have been appalling.
Updated
Flynn quotes from a column on the state visit by the Observer’s Andrew Rawnsley. Rawnsley wrote:
Some ministers mutter that the big mistake was to issue the invitation to make an early state visit to Britain, a notion conceived as a way of flattering his colossal vanities. At the very least, it would have been prudent to wait before rolling the royal red carpet. Pimping out the Queen for Donald Trump. This, apparently, is what they meant by getting our sovereignty back.
Flynn ends by saying that, if Trump gets a state visit, it will look as if Britain is endorsing his policies.
We are in a position unlike any faced by any previous Parliament where we have a person of a unique personality running the United States. There are great dangers in attempts to give him the best accolade we can offer anyone - only been offered twice before - of a state visit.
This would be terribly wrong because it would appear that the British Parliament, the British nation, the British sovereign, is approving of the acts of Donald J Trump.
Updated
Flynn says Trump is the least popular American president in the UK ever. And in the US his ratings are going down, he says. He says Trump is now as unpopular as Nixon was at the time of Watergate.
He says MPs should respond to the petition on Trump because, if they do not respond to the public will on an issue like this, support for politicians will fall even further.
Flynn, a leftwinger and a republican, says he has enormous regard for the Queen. She continues to work even though she is eight years older than he is, he says. Flynn is 82.
Flynn says “the intellectual capacity of the president is protozoan”.
He says President Trump has exacerbated all the problems he has intervened in.
Labour MP Paula Sherriff says:
To use the expression ‘Grab them by the pussy’ describes a sexual assault, and therefore suggests he should not be afforded a visit to our Queen.
Asked if he agrees that Trump’s talk of grabbing women “by the pussy” makes him unfit to meet the Queen, Flynn says he agrees.
Jacob Rees-Mogg, a Conservative and arch traditionalist, says that Trump’s language might have been misfortunate. But Emperor Hirohito of Japan was given a state visit even though he was responsible for the Rape of Nanking. He says:
What complaint did you make when Emperor Hirohito came here, who was responsible for the rape of Nanking?
Flynn says some guests are more welcome than others.
There have been many people here who were less welcome than others. That’s absolutely true. But we’ve had people here, very unsavoury characters and not from the United States as it happens. But certainly we can’t try to imitate the errors of the past. We should set an example of making sure we don’t make those mistakes again.
Updated
The Labour MP Paul Flynn, a member of the petitions committee, is opening the debate.
He says he thinks MPs are agreed in their support for American values.
But this debate is about the wisdom of offering President Trump a state visit, he says.
He says since 1952 only two other American presidents have been accorded a state visit. Yet President Trump was offered one after just seven days in office, he says.
You can watch the Trump debate on the parliamentary website here.
This is not the first time MPs have debated whether or not Donald Trump should visit the UK in Westminster Hall. In January last year, when Trump was still just one of many candidates seeking the Republican nomination for president, MPs held a debate on a petition saying he should be banned from the UK because of his proposal to prevent Muslims from entering the US.
You can read an account of that debate here.
At the time MPs from all parties condemned Trump’s proposal although the general consensus was that, given there was a chance of Trump becoming president, banning him from the UK would probably be unwise.
MPs debate refusing Donald Trump a state visit to the UK
MPs have just started a three-hour debate on refusing Donald Trump a state visit to the UK.
It is technically a House of Commons debate, but it is not taking part in the main Commons chamber. Instead it is being held in Westminster Hall, a mini chamber, or annex, off the historic Westminster Hall (same name, but different room) that gets used for low-level debates that do not involve legislation or votes.
Today’s debate is taking place because the Commons has a rule that says petitions that attract more than 100,000 signatures should normally be considered for debate. The main petition about Trump has been signed by 1.8m people. It says:
Donald Trump should be allowed to enter the UK in his capacity as head of the US Government, but he should not be invited to make an official State Visit because it would cause embarrassment to Her Majesty the Queen.
But MPs will also be debating a rival petition saying Trump should get a state visit. It has been signed by 312,000 people and it says:
Donald Trump should be invited to make an official State Visit because he is the leader of a free world and U.K. is a country that supports free speech and does not believe that people that appose our point of view should be gagged.
The debate will be opened by the Labour MP Paul Flynn, a member of the Commons petitions committee, which decides which petitions get debated. At some point Sir Alan Duncan, the deputy foreign secretary, will respond on behalf of the government.
In some respects the whole affair will be quite pointless. MPs will not vote at the end of the debate and, besides, the government has already declared in its response to the petition that the state visit is going ahead.
But the debate will allow parliamentarians to tell each other, and the world, quite what they think about the new US president. It won’t be dull.
Opening of the Lords debate on article 50 - Summary
The opening of the Lords debate on the article 50 bill has been rather understated. Natalie Evans, the newish and young (she is 41) leader of the Lords kicked off, but her speech was perfunctory. Angela Smith, her Labour opposite number, and Lord Newby, the Lib Dem leader in the Lords, were much better. Here are the key points.
- The two main opposition parties in the Lords have both signalled their intention to amend the article 50 bill. In her speech Angela Smith, the Labour leader, insisted that this was perfectly legitimate and that it did not amount to blocking the bill.
As evidenced from the amendments already tabled we will seek improvements, encourage ministers to make reasonable changes, and possibly, just possibly, we may ask our colleagues in the Other Place to reconsider on specific issues.
That’s not delaying the process, it is part of the process and has no impact on the government’s self-imposed deadline.
Lord Newby, the Lib Dem leader in the Lords, made a similar point.
We do have the power to ask the Commons to think again on any piece of legislation, large or small. And I hope the government will accept this. When we had the statement in response to the supreme court ruling on 24 January the minister, the Noble Lord, Lord Bridges said “we in this House, as an unelected chamber, need to tread with considerable care on this issue as we proceed.”
The clear implication was that we should not be pressing amendments. In response, Lord Rooker replied “It would be very useful if when we debate this bill, we do not have ministers or anyone else talking about constitutional crises. This place cannot have the last word. A government defeat in your Lordships’ House is simply a request to the Commons to look at the issue again – that is all it is.” My Lords that sums up the position perfectly.
- Natalie Evans, the leader of the Lords, said she accepted that peers did not want to “frustrate” Brexit. Some people have claimed this, she said:
As someone who understands our collective sense of responsibility to our important constitutional role I don’t share those concerns. I am confident peers will take a constructive approach in our deliberations.
- Smith criticised those in government who have been threatening, through anonymous briefings, to swamp the House of Lords with new peers or to abolish it if peers delay the article 50 bill. She said:
MPs, even peers from your Lordships House, and an anonymous ‘government source’ have threatened this House with 600 or 1000 extra Conservative peers to get this legislation through, or with abolition.
I did have to point out in response to one Conservative MP, that it would take about two years to introduce 1000 new peers which might be a little too late for this bill.
But my Lords, we will not be threatened into not fulfilling our normal constitutional role – and neither will we be goaded into acting irresponsibly.
We have to have a serious and responsible debate.
And in doing so, if we ask the House of Commons to look again at an issue, it is not a constitutional outrage but a constitutional responsibility.
- She said that those who have doubts about Brexit must not be excluded from the negotiating process.
The motivation to get the best possible deal will be driven by understanding the complexities involved. Not a glib confidence that it’s all going to be fine.
The process of Brexit cannot be run solely by those that have no doubt. It has to engage those that fear the worst and will work for the best.
- She criticised Theresa May’s “Brexit means Brexit” slogan. She told peers:
That lack of government planning has created a vacuum in which uncertainty has thrived.
“Brexit means Brexit” was perhaps the most unwise of all statements following the referendum. It just served to highlight that void.
- Newby described the government’s white paper on Brexit as “a rather horrifying mixture of pious aspiration and complacent delusion”.
With the stark exception of its rejection of the single market and the European Court, the white paper is a rather horrifying mixture of pious aspiration and complacent delusion. The prime minister’s preface sets the tone. British exceptionalism abounds. We have the “finest intelligence services, the bravest armed forces, the most effective hard and soft power. What’s more, according to the white paper, the country is “coming together”, with “65 million people willing to make it happen.”
- He said the government’s approach to Brexit was “little short of disastrous”.
Brexit is the most important single issue which has faced the country for decades. For many of us, the approach being adopted by the government is little short of disastrous. For those of us – and there are many in your lordships’ House – for whom Europe has been a central theme of our entire political lives, to sit on our hands in these circumstances is both unthinkable and unconscionable.
Updated
Hague says, given that he cannot have what he wanted (Britain remaining in the EU), the next best thing will be for Britain to leave with as much unity as possible.
He says democratic accountability involves the government being able to go to the country in 2020 and ask to be judged on how it handled Brexit.
He says he has been involved in many EU negotiations. Anyone involved in talks like those will want to involved being constrained by legislation, he says. He says this bill is admirably simple. Any amendments relating to process might interfere with this, he says. And any amendments relating to policy might undermine the government’s negotiating position, he says.
William Hague, the Conservative former foreign secretary, is speaking now. He starts by declaring his interests, and says he is paid to give speeches - for a lot longer than six minutes, the unofficial limit that has been placed on speeches now in the Lords.
He says that he voted to stay in the EU. But he thinks it would be a mistake to ignore the view the public expressed in the referendum.
He says he has enormous respect for Tony Blair, more than many people in Blair’s own party, but he thinks Blair was wrong to urge people to rise up against Brexit. He says he respects Blair not least because Blair beat him handsomely in the 2001 election. But if a few months later he had urged people to rise up against the result of that election, Blair would have told him to respect it, he says.
The Rt Rev Christopher Chessun, the Bishop of Southwark, is speaking now.
He says many parts of the country that have benefited most from EU funding voted decisively, “if quixotically”, to leave the EU.
He says it is the view of many bishops, including the archbishop of Canterbury, that it would be best not to add amendments to the bill. Where faced with a choice between passing an amendment, and accepting an assurance from a minister, peers should accept the assurances from the government, he says.
Lord Hope of Craighead is speaking now. A former judge, he is convenor of the crossbench peers.
He says the bill should not be used to tie the government’s hands before the Brexit negotiations start.
In his speech Newby says some people have said the House of Lords should not try to amend the bill. But defeating the government on amendment just amounts to asking the government to think again, he says.
Theresa May has left the Lords chamber, according to the BBC’s Esther Webber.
Theresa May has just left the Lords, Commons leader David Lidington stays on
— Esther Webber (@estwebber) February 20, 2017
Lord Newby, the Lib Dem leader in the Lords, is speaking now.
He says the government has chosen not to prioritise the economy in the Brexit negotiations.
And he criticises the government for trying to align with the UK with the US, not the EU. He says, with Donald Trump as president, we cannot pretend that American and British values are the same.
He also describes the government’s white paper on Brexit as a combination of “pious aspiration and complacent delusion”.
Smith says the Brexit process must not exclude people who have doubts about the process.
Smith says peers have had lots of advice about how they should vote.
But they have also received threats from people who should know better, she says.
She says government sources have told the papers that they may flood the Lords with new peers if the Lords tries to hold up the article 50 bill.
She says she had to point out to one colleague that it would take two years to introduce 1,000 new peers into the Lords, as one story suggested. (Under Lords rules there is a limit to how many new peers can be introduced on any one day.) That would be too long for article 50, she says.
She says threatening the Lords is wrong. The Lords will not hold up the bill, she says. But it will scrutinise the bill, and it may ask the government to consider changes to the bill.
That is not delaying the process, she says. It is the process.
Updated
Angela Smith, the Labour leader in the Lords, is speaking now.
She says the referendum gave a clear result in favour of leaving the EU.
She says a recent report identified 1957 as the happiest year of the last century. It was a time of low wages and poor housing. But it was a time of optimism too, she says.
She says that is not the case today. Millennials have much to worry about, she says.
She says founding the EU reflected that 1950s optimism. We should not forget the contribution it has made to peace, she says.
Here is Lady Royall, who was leader of the Lords when Gordon Brown was prime minister, on Theresa May’s decision to attend the debate.
Theresa May on the steps of the throne to listen to the beginning of the Article 50 debate. Amazing. Never known the PM to be present
— Janet Royall (@LabourRoyall) February 20, 2017
This is from the Daily Mirror’s Dan Bloom.
Theresa May lording it over the Lords, from the foot of an enormous gold throne pic.twitter.com/sDcyILwGEs
— Dan Bloom (@danbloom1) February 20, 2017
Updated
Evans says leaving the EU is a process that will last years. She says peers will have many opportunities to consider the details of this, including when the great repeal bill goes through parliament.
She says the government will give parliament as much information as it can about the Brexit negotiation process, so long as that does not undermine the government’s negotiating position.
And she confirms that the Commons and the Lords will get a vote on the final deal. The government wants that to happen before the European parliament votes on it, she says.
Natalie Evans, the leader of the Lords, is opening the debate.
She says this bill is not about reopening the debate about leaving the European Union. The people settled that in the referendum, she says.
She says it is a short bill that gives the prime minister the authority to trigger article 50 taking the UK out of the EU.
Theresa May is in the House of Lords for the article 50 debate, which will start within the next few minutes.
MPs who want to listen to a Lords debate are allowed to sit in the chamber, at the steps of the throne. The Sun’s Harry Cole has caught a screengrab.
May almost on the throne... pic.twitter.com/zXQVkRAW7c
— Harry Cole (@MrHarryCole) February 20, 2017
Peers begin debating article 50 bill
Peers are about to start debating the second reading of the article 50 bill.
It will be a two-day debate, and 190 peers have put their names down to speak.
But, unless anything very surprising happens, we won’t a proper vote. Peers normally never vote against a bill at second reading and so it is expected that, at some point tomorrow evening, the bill will go through on the nod.
There will be votes later, when peers debate amendments, perhaps next week during the two committee stage debates or, more probably, the following week, on Tuesday 7 March, at report and third reading. (In the Lords it is more common for amendments to be pushed to a vote at report stage than at committee stage.)
Today’s debate will be opened by Natalie Evans, the leader of the Lords, and she will be followed by Angela Smith, the Labour leader in the Lords.
The full list of peers speaking, and the order in which they will appear, is here.
Here is the ICM account of today’s polling. And here are the tables (pdf).
Majority of Britons opposed to Trump getting full state visit, poll suggests
The Guardian/ICM poll also featured questions on Donald Trump, John Bercow and Brexit.
This afternoon MPs will debate a petition signed by almost 2m people saying that, while Donald Trump should be free to visit the UK, he should not be honoured with a state visit.
We asked about this, and it turns out a majority of Britons agree.
Asked about the Trump visit, people were given three options.
Trump should be prevented from visiting Britain: 18%
Trump should be allowed to visit but not given a full state visit: 37%
Trump should be given a full state visit: 32%
Don’t know: 12%
- Majority of Britons (55%) are opposed to Donald Trump getting a full state visit, poll suggests.
John Bercow, the Commons speaker, told MPs recently that he would block Trump being invited to give a speech in Westminster Hall, leading to calls from some Tories for Bercow to resign on the grounds that he was showing his bias. We asked about this too, and the public seems divided, with many people not expressing a view.
Bercow should stay as speaker because he is doing a good job: 30%
Bercow should resign or be removed as speaker because he’s not impartial: 32%
Don’t know: 38%
- A third of Britons think John Bercow should resign or be removed as speaker because he’s not impartial, poll suggests.
Finally, we asked about what will be one of the key issues for peers as they debate the article 50 bill: whether the government should guarantee EU nationals living in the UK now that they will be allowed to stay, as Labour and other opposition parties are demanding; or whether it should wait until Britons living in other EU countries should also get their rights guaranteed, as Theresa May is proposing.
The government should not give EU nationals living in the UK the right to stay until Britons living in other EU countries get the same right: 42%
The government should guarantee the rights of EU nationals now, because it is the right thing to do and may get negotiations off to a good start: 41%
Don’t know: 17%
- Voters prefer May’s policy over the rights of EU nationals to Labour’s by a tiny margin, poll suggests.
ICM Unlimited interviewed 2,028 adults aged 18+ online on 17-19 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.
Latest Guardian/ICM poll shows Conservatives 18 points ahead of Labour
As we all know, opinion polls are not a 100% reliable guide to election results. But they are still considerably more useful than mass vox pops, looking at Twitter or guesswork, and with that caveat here the results of the latest Guardian/ICM poll.
In a nutshell, it is truly dire for Labour.
Conservatives: 44% (up 2 points from Guardian/ICM two weeks ago)
Labour: 26% (down 1)
Ukip: 13% (up 1)
Lib Dems: 8% (down 2)
Greens: 4% (no change)
Conservative lead: 18 points (up 3)
According to ICM’s Martin Boon, only three other polls in this series (dating from May 1983, when ICM was Marplan) have given the Tories a higher lead over Labour. Two of those polls were just before the 1983 general election, when Margaret Thatcher crushed Michael Foot, and the other was in June 2008, when Gordon Brown’s premiership was at a low point.
At 26%, Labour is just one point above the lowest it has ever reached in this series (25%, which it hit in June 2008 and August 2009).
But, at 44%, the Conservatives are some way off the highest they have reached in this series, the 47.5% they reached in May 1983.
The poll also featured questions about Donald Trump, John Bercow and Brexit. I will post those shortly.
ICM Unlimited interviewed 2,028 adults aged 18+ online on 17-19 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.
May tells peers not to hold up article 50 bill
Here’s a video of Theresa May in Stoke this morning. This from from BBC Radio Stoke’s Emma Thomas.
PM @theresa_may meets @EmmaBridgewater on #StokeCentral by-election campaign @BBCRadioStoke @bbcmtd pic.twitter.com/gpDDLMGlfr
— Emma J Thomas (@EmmaJThomas) February 20, 2017
Speaking during the visit, May says she hoped that the House of Lords would not hold up the article 50 bill. She said:
[The bill] was not amended [in the House of Commons]. I hope that the House of Lords will pay attention to that. Properly there will be debate and scrutiny in the House of Lords, but I don’t want to see anybody holding up up what the British people want, what the people of Stoke-on-Trent voted for last year, which is for us to deliver Brexit, to leave the European Union.
According to the Telegraph’s Christopher Hope, May is planning to be in the Lords chamber for the opening of the debate.
EXCLUSIVE Theresa May set to attend House of Lords Article 50 debate in person https://t.co/7SKZfWHSLQ via @telegraphnews
— Christopher Hope (@christopherhope) February 20, 2017
Updated
No 10 lobby briefing - Summary
Here are the main lines from the Number 10 lobby briefing.
- Number 10 claimed that the business rates revaluation coming into force in April amounted to “the biggest ever cut in business rates”. The prime minister’s spokesman conceded that, overall, the change was revenue neutral, meaning that overall the Treasury will not gain or lose money. But it was the biggest ever cut in terms of the number of firms affected, he said.
What we are talking about is the biggest ever cut in business rates. Seventy three per cent of businesses are going to see their bills either reduced or stay exactly the same. That is an effect that is going to be felt across the country ... 600,000 small businesses will pay no rates at all. That will be the permanent position for those businesses.
The spokesman also said that the government was spending £3.6bn on transitional relief for businesses that will have to pay more under the new system.
- Downing Street rejected claims from some EU countries that Britain is adopting “blackmail and divide” tactics in the Brexit negotiations. Asked if he agreed with this allegation, which features in the Guardian’s splash today, the spokesman replied:
Quite simply, no. We have been clear throughout this process that we want to see a deal that works in the best interests of both sides, that is us and all the other member states. We want the EU to prosper. That is in Britain’s best interests, and also the interests of the member states.
- The spokesman rejected Tony Blair’s call for a rethink on Brexit. The spokesman said that MPs passed the referendum bill by six to one and that, following the result last summer, “the people have made it very clear that they expect us to leave the EU”.
- Sir Alan Duncan, the deputy foreign secretary, will speak for the government in the Westminster Hall debate on denying President Trump a state visit later today.
-
The prime minister’s spokesman confirmed that May plans to meet Carlos Tavares, the chief executive of the PSA Group, to discuss Peugeot’s proposals to buy General Motors’ European operation, including Vauxhall, but would not discuss what she will say to him.
Max Hill QC is the new independent reviewer of terrorism legislation. Amber Rudd, the home secretary, has announced in a written ministerial statement. He is replacing David Anderson QC who has finished his stint in the post. Rudd said:
Mr Hill has been a QC for nine years and has extensive experience both defending and prosecuting complex cases involving terrorism, homicide, violent crime, high value fraud and corporate crime. He successfully prosecuted the 21/7 bombers, and he appeared in the inquest into the 7/7 bombings. He also sits as a Recorder at the Old Bailey.
Mr Hill will take up this role from 1 March 2017. He takes over from David Anderson QC, who has served as Independent Reviewer with great distinction since 2011, and to whom I am extremely grateful for the significant contribution he has made.
I’m just back from the Number 10 lobby briefing. There wasn’t any dramatic news, but there were some lines of interest, and I will post a summary soon.
The prime minister’s spokesman refused to comment on reports that Theresa May is visiting Stoke today. But Labour say she is on the way and, in the hope of creating a similar difficulty for her to the one she faced on her byelection trip to Copeland last week, they have just put out a press release quoting from a leaked email saying the deficit of Stoke-on-Trent’s local hospital trust, whose main site is the Royal Stoke Hospital, will be more than £100m next year. In the email Paula Clarke, the University Hospitals of North Midlands trust’s chief executive, says:
Our financial situation remains extremely challenging and is set to worsen significantly when the additional TSA funding for County Hospital runs out at the end of March 2017. I must be very clear that our deficit is not a County specific problem as there are large operating deficits at both sites. As a Trust the financial gap between our costs and our income will be in excess of £100m next year, which will be one of the largest in the country.
Commenting on the leak Gareth Snell, the Labour candidate in Stoke-on-Trent Central, said:
This shocking revelation shows that our local hospital trust is at breaking point. The NHS is in crisis and hospitals are struggling to cope. Under Theresa May, our health services are underfunded, understaffed and close to collapse, and UKIP’s response is to sell it off to the highest bidder.
Lord Hill, who was Britain’s European commissioner until he resigned after the referendum last year, was also on the Today programme this morning talking about the article 50 bill. He said it would be a mistake to let parliament have a veto over the final Brexit deal.
If you think of this from the point of view of the European side where they are going to have to cobble together the views of 27 different member states … They have to trust that what the prime minister says, what David Davis says, they can deliver on.
So I think the idea that at the end of that process of negotiation a British negotiator says ‘oh I’m terribly sorry, that deal that I’ve just offered to you and struck with you, I’m afraid that Parliament has just voted on it and changed the terms’, I don’t see how you could negotiate in good faith if we were to proceed on that basis.
I’m just off to the Number 10 lobby briefing now. I will post again after 11.30am.
This afternoon peers will begin the two-day second reading debate on the article 50 bill. Peers do not normally vote at second reading, so the bill will almost certainly go through tomorrow evening on the nod.
On the Today programme this morning Angela Smith, the Labour leader in the Lords, said that although opposition peers would try to amend the bill, they would not delay it from becoming law. She said:
All the House of Lords can do is ask the Commons to look at an issue again. I don’t see any extended ping pong on this at all.
“Ping pong” is the process that takes place when the Commons and the Lords disagree over a bill, and it shuttles to and fro between the two Houses at the end of its passage through parliament until one side backs down. The article 50 bill is due to have its final day in the Lords on Tuesday 7 March. By the time it gets its third reading it is likely to contain some anti-government amendments, possibly guaranteeing EU nationals the right to stay in the UK and firming up the commitment for parliament to get a vote on the final deal. But the government will then remove those amendments when the bill returns to the Commons, perhaps on Monday 13 March. The bill will then return to the Lords and peers could then insist on their amendments (ie, vote to put them back in again.) But Smith’s comments suggest that at this point peers will back down, and accept the bill in the unamended form that the government wants.
Here is our story on Smith’s comments.
Full press statement from the two Ukip chairmen resigning over Nuttall
Here is the full statement put out on behalf of Stuart Monkcom and Adam Heatherington, the two Ukip chairmen who have resigned from the party in protest over Paul Nuttall’s “false claims and insensitivity regarding Hillsborough”, as they put it.
I normally just post direct quotes from press releases, but this one is worth quoting in full, including the headline (their bold, not mine). Here it is.
False claims and insensitivity regarding Hillsborough by Paul Nuttall and Arron Banks force honourable resignations.
In a major blow to Paul Nuttall and Ukip, two leading figures in Paul Nuttall’s home patch of Liverpool, namely the branch chairman of Nuttall’s branch, Stuart Monkcom, and the chairman of Ukip for the Merseyside region of branches, Adam Heatherington, have resigned from their positions and left the party citing the unprofessional handling of information surrounding Hillsborough by Paul Nuttall and the insensitive remarks made by Arron Banks reported in national press.
“Although the timing of our resignations is unfortunate in light of upcoming elections, both Adam and I wish to make it clear, where the painful subject of Hillsborough is concerned, with closure not yet in sight, this unprofessional approach and crass insensitivity from high profile people closely within and without Ukip is upsetting and intolerable. We identify most strongly with all the good people of Liverpool and most importantly the families of the Hillsborough victims who have fought so hard and long for justice, in their condemnation of the way Ukip has handled these issues and have resigned our positions and membership of Ukip forthwith,” says Stuart, branch chairman of Paul Nuttall’s own branch, Ukip Liverpool.
Adam continues: “We have been affected both personally and professionally by words that were not said in our name. With this in mind, we wish to apologise to the people of Liverpool and the Hillsborough families for any offence caused and have done what we consider to be the only honourable thing we could do which was to resign and disassociate ourselves from Ukip. I felt that supporting a libertarian party was the right thing to do in order to effect change within the political system in this country. Unfortunately that dream has been shattered and the potential of Ukip has been squandered by people who have demonstrated they are not fit to lead at present.”
A press spokesman for the pair noted: “It is impossible for those hard working party activists at grass roots level who are never properly briefed, not to be affected by the actions of those in control of the party machinery when mistakes and poor policy decisions are made. They are the ones who are most affected in the fallout. However, they have shown personal integrity by responding to genuine criticism which it appears Ukip cannot bring itself to comment upon in a timely manner.”
And here are the key points.
- Outgoing Ukip Liverpool chairman Stuart Monkcom accuses Paul Nuttall of “crass insensitivity” over Hillsborough.
- Outgoing Ukip Merseyside chairman Adam Heatherington says Nuttall is “not fit to lead”.
- Monkcom and Heatherington apologise to the people of Liverpool and the Hillsborough families for Nuttall on behalf of Ukip.
Updated
Paul Nuttall, the Ukip leader, has just put out a press statement. But it says nothing about the two Liverpool resignations. It is about what Lord Mandelson said on the Andrew Marr Show yesterday about the need for peers to show more courage opposing Brexit. Nuttall said:
The British people have made their choice. For the Lords - which is stuffed with pro-EU timeservers and from which UKIP has been systematically excluded - to mess around with it would be both outrageous and dangerous.
We would in my view be in a situation akin to that before the first world war when the Parliament Act was passed to bring the upper house to heel after the Lords interfered with a finance bill.
The arrogance of Labour peers such as Lord Mandelson and Lord Hain is breath-taking. Unelected figures who set themselves against the will of the people are being grossly irresponsible.
I cannot predict the ferocity of the response we might see if our democracy is subverted in this way. I urge pro-EU peers not to go down this perilous path.
In the last great constitutional crisis David Lloyd-George called the Lords ‘Mr Balfour’s Poodle’ and referred to peers as 500 men drawn from the ranks of the unemployed.
I note the relevant figure is now 900 men and women, which does not look like progress to me. The Lords must not now become Peter Mandelson’s Poodle.
One Ukip insider said he could understand why Stuart Monkcom and Adam Heatherington may have felt the need to resign because anyone publicly associated with Ukip in Liverpool has been under huge pressure since the controversy about Paul Nuttall’s Hillsborough claims erupted. The insider said:
If you are the public face of Ukip in Liverpool, you are under an enormous amount of personal pressure. I have nothing but sympathy for these two guys.
The two Ukip chairman who have resigned from the party are Stuart Monkcom, chair of Ukip’s Liverpool branch, and Adam Heatherington, chair of Ukip’s Merseyside branch.
According to the Sun, here is Monkcom’s statement.
Although the timing of our resignations is unfortunate in light of upcoming elections, both Adam and I wish to make it clear, where the painful subject of Hillsborough is concerned, with closure not yet in sight, this unprofessional approach and crass insensitivity from high profile people closely within and without UKIP is upsetting and intolerable.
We identify most strongly with all the good people of Liverpool and most importantly the families of the Hillsborough victims who have fought so hard and long for justice, in their condemnation of the way UKIP has handled these issues and have resigned our positions and our membership forthwith.
Updated
Two Ukip chairmen quit in protest over Paul Nuttall's Hillsborough falsehood
Paul Nuttall, the Ukip leader, is hoping to get elected to parliament in the Stoke-on-Trent Central byelection on Thursday but, as the BBC’s Norman Smith reports, he has been hit by a serious setback at the worst possible time. Two senior Ukip party members from Merseyside have resigned from the party because of Nuttall’s conduct in relation to Hillsborough, and his admission that the claim that he lost close friends in the tragedy were false. One of them, Ukip’s chairman in Liverpool, has questioned whether Nuttall is fit to lead the party.
Two @UKIP chairmen in merseyside resign from party in protest at @paulnuttallukip handling of Hillsborough controversy
— norman smith (@BBCNormanS) February 20, 2017
Sources in @ukip say more resignations of party officials and members expected in Merseyside over @paulnuttallukip Hillsborough comments
— norman smith (@BBCNormanS) February 20, 2017
UKIP Liverpool chairman attack @paulnuttallukip over "unprofessional approach and crass insensitivity"
— norman smith (@BBCNormanS) February 20, 2017
Liverpool @ukipchairman questions whether @paulnuttallukip "fit to lead"
— norman smith (@BBCNormanS) February 20, 2017
Merseyside @ukip chairmen say contacted @paulnuttallukip over Hillsborough remarks - but received no response
— norman smith (@BBCNormanS) February 20, 2017
I will post more on this as further details become available.
Here is the agenda for the day.
11am: Number 10 lobby briefing.
3pm: Peers begin the two-day second reading debate on the article 50 bill.
4.30pm: MPs hold a debate in Westminster Hall on the petition saying Donald Trump should not be invited to make a state visit to the UK.
As usual, I will be covering breaking political news as it happens, as well as bringing you the best reaction, comment and analysis from the web. I plan to post a summary at lunchtime and another in the afternoon.
You can read all today’s Guardian politics stories here.
If you want to follow me or contact me on Twitter, I’m on@AndrewSparrow.
I try to monitor the comments BTL but normally I find it impossible to read them all. If you have a direct question, do include “Andrew” in it somewhere and I’m more likely to find it. I do try to answer direct questions, although sometimes I miss them or don’t have time. Alternatively you could post a question to me on Twitter.
Updated
