Article 50

Government suffers its second Article 50 defeat in the Lords

Tonight the government suffered its second Article 50 bill defeat in the House of Lords. Peers backed an amendment calling for a ‘meaningful’ parliamentary vote on the final terms of withdrawal from the EU by 366 votes to 268. Heralding the result, Lord Heseltine said Parliament must be the ‘custodian of national sovereignty’. The bill will now return to the Commons where Theresa May will hope to overturn the amendment, along with the issue of guaranteeing the rights of EU citizens. The government had been braced for defeat on both of these issues but regardless this now presents them with a headache — convincing pro-Remain MPs not to rebel. It’s thought May will face the

A Parliament veto on Brexit would guarantee a stinker of a deal

Theresa May is warning Tory rebels that if Parliament gets a meaningful vote on Brexit, the European Union will be ‘incentivised’ to offer the UK a ‘bad deal’. She is right. But that doesn’t mean the Prime Minister should dismiss the prospect of the House of Lords inflicting a second defeat on the government, with peers today set to back an amendment requiring Parliament to endorse the UK’s final Brexit deal. May should, in contrast, turn what looks like an inconvenience to her political and diplomatic advantage. Theresa May responded to the first Parliamentary defeat to the government’s Article 50 bill, on an amendment designed to guarantee residency rights for all EU

Tom Goodenough

What the papers say: Why amending the Brexit bill would be a mistake

Remember David Cameron’s renegotiation with Brussels in the run-up to the referendum? There’s a good chance you’ve probably forgotten; after all, even the Prime Minister wasn’t keen to talk up his paltry deal. Yet there’s a danger of history repeating itself if peers have their wicked way, warns the Sun. ‘Peers and rebel Tory MPs’ are keen to tangle up Theresa May with a veto on whatever she agrees with the EU, the paper warns. This would be a mistake. It’s clear that Cameron’s renegotiation ‘failed because EU leaders didn’t take him seriously’. And if Brussels ‘knew the Prime Minister might be sent back to compromise time and again’ they’d

In defence of Lord Heseltine

Lord Heseltine has been denounced because he says he will vote against the government over Brexit in the House of Lords. It seems terrifically unfair. Has there ever been an occasion, in his long political career, when he has not been in favour of British membership of the EU (or EEC)? Why should he change now, aged 83, from that honourably held, spiritedly asserted, if wrong, position? Can’t a few Europhiles, in the mirror-image of John Major’s Eurosceptic ‘bastards’, be bastards too? The only inconsistency in Hezza’s last stand is that this is the one time in his half-century stance on Europe when he has asserted the right of Parliament

Carry on Major: real democrats don’t shout down Europhiles

As Prime Minister, John Major was intolerant of opposition from within the Conservative party over the EU — memorably calling Maastricht rebels ‘bastards’. It was unwise, and the bad blood it created within his party has been swirling around ever since. Now that the tables have turned and Sir John now finds himself the rebellious outsider on Europe, it is tempting for those on the Conservative party’s Eurosceptic wing, who for so long were denounced as freaks, fruitcakes and swivel–eyed loons, to take the same approach. Their instinct is to denounce Sir John, Michael Heseltine, Ken Clarke and others as dinosaurs seeking to deny the will of the British people. A

What the papers say: Why the Commons should listen to the Lords

Peers haven’t made themselves popular by voting for an amendment to the Government’s Article 50 bill. They’ve been called ‘contemptible’, accused of an ‘insidious plot to thwart democracy‘ and threatened with abolition. But is there a chance they were right to try and make MPs think again? That’s the argument made in the Times this morning, which says in its editorial that if you felt uncomfortable watching unelected peers meddling with the business of elected MPs there’s a simple reason: the peers had a point. The role of the Lords is to ‘request that the Commons should further reflect’, says the Times. And in calling for MPs to think again on the Article 50

What the papers say: The Lords’ ‘insidious plot to thwart democracy’

When the House of Lords voted against the Government’s Brexit bill last night, peers won’t have been expecting much in the way of thanks in today’s newspapers. But the ferocity of the attacks on the Lords could still come as something of a surprise: it’s time for the Lords to go, says the Sun in its editorial this morning in which it accuses peers of trying to ‘hobble the PM’ in Brexit talks. The paper describes the Government’s defeat last night as ‘contemptible’ and ‘short-sighted grandstanding’, and says the session showed that Lords wanted to make it clear ‘how much they care about EU citizens’  -with no regard for British citizens

Matthew Parris

From now on, I’ll greet Brexiteers with a grin

I’m cheering up about Brexit. The moaning has to stop. Why be downhearted and edgy when you’re confident of your argument? Leavers: you’re all wrong. I’m not totally sure — one never can be — and certainly I could be mistaken: and one day we’ll know. Meanwhile I place my confidence in the judgment of those in British politics I most admire, people like Michael Heseltine, Chris Patten, John Major, Ruth Davidson and Kenneth Clarke; and, sticking to my guns and with a merry two fingers up to the lot of you, I leave you Brexit types to the snarling din emanating from your Brexit cave. Chins up, Leaver trolls

John Major’s Brexit speech, full transcript

Eight months ago a majority of voters opted to leave the European Union. I believed then – as I do now – that was an historic mistake, but it was one – once asked – that the British nation had every right to make. The Government cannot ignore the nation’s decision and must now shape a new future for our country. Some changes may be beneficial: others may not. A hard Brexit– which is where we seem to be headed – is high risk. Some will gain. Others – will lose. Many outcomes will be very different from present expectations. We will find, for example, that – for all the

Tom Goodenough

Will the Government’s Article 50 bill survive its big test in the Lords?

The Government is getting worried. So far, the passage of the Article 50 bill through Parliament has been relatively smooth. Tomorrow, there’s a chance that could change: peers will debate the issue of what happens to EU citizens in the UK after Brexit. This topic has been something of a political hot potato for the Government ever since Theresa May made it clear she wouldn’t guarantee the rights of the 3.3m EU citizens living in Britain to stay put. The PM’s position is that she doesn’t want to give away a useful bargaining chip, fearing that by doing so, Brits living on the continent will remain in limbo. In the

What the papers say: Could free movement from the EU end next month?

‘Take back control’ was the mantra of the Brexit bunch during the referendum – but eight months on, Britain is still waiting to be handed the keys. Next month, says the Daily Telegraph, part of the wait could be over. The paper reports that Theresa May is planning to announce an end to free movement for EU migrants when she triggers Article 50 in March. If this is true, we should celebrate the Prime Minister’s decisiveness, the paper says, hailing the plan as both legal – given that it ‘will only take effect after Brexit’ – and ‘sensible’ – to avoid a rush of migrants coming to Britain before the door slams shut.

A quick trade deal with the US after Brexit is less likely than we think

It is many a Brexiteer’s fantasy: In 2019, shortly after the UK formally leaves the EU, Theresa May welcomes Donald Trump to Downing Street to ink a trade pact. Out with the old, in with the new, and the ‘special relationship’ standing tall. But how likely is that scenario? A trade deal would certainly be politically meaningful for both sides. For Trump, who is facing pressure over his protectionist rhetoric, it would be an opportunity to boost his pro-trade credentials. While Theresa May could use it to show that Britain has trade options beyond the EU. The prospect of a deal with the US could also boost her hand when it

The Stop Trump protests are the ultimate virtue signal

This afternoon, across Britain, the most pro-establishment demo of modern times will take place. Sure, the Stop Trump protesters gathering outside Parliament and elsewhere will look and sound rad. They’ll chant and rage and blow whistles and hold up placards with Trump done up like a tangerine Hitler. But don’t be fooled. These people are the militant wing of the old establishment. They’re radicals for the old status quo, pining for the pre-Brexit, pre-Trump era when their kind ruled and ordinary people knew their place.  The aim of the Stop Trump gatherings is to encourage MPs to deny Trump a state visit. Starting at 4.30pm, MPs will debate a petition

Tom Goodenough

What the papers say: Why we’ve ‘had enough’ of Lord Mandelson

After Tony Blair and Alastair Campbell returned to urge a revolt against Brexit, only one thing was missing: Peter Mandelson, who turned up on Andrew Marr’s sofa yesterday. Ever on-message, he repeated Blair’s line that the 52 per cent of the country who backed Brexit ‘had no idea of the terms on which the government would decide to leave the EU’. So is the ‘prince of darkness’ simply up to his old tricks? Mandelson’s intervention certainly hasn’t earned him a warm reception in the newspaper editorials this morning. The Sun describes Mandelson as ‘disgraced’ and says the peer’s ‘contempt for democracy’ was the exact reason that ‘led to the demand for Brexit’

Poems on the triggering of Article 50

The request for poetic previews of the day Article 50 is triggered produced passionate voices from both sides of the Brexit divide with many of you recruiting distinguished poets to your cause. D.A. Prince cleverly appropriated ‘Vitaï Lampada’, Sir Henry Newbolt’s tribute to English patriotism: ‘There’s a dread-filled rush in the House tonight/ With Article 50 poised to go,/ After lies black as pitch and the blind claiming sight/ And nothing to halt, now, the whole sorry show’; Jennifer Moore’s entry channelled the spirit of Dr Seuss: ‘The sun did not shine./ We were too sad to work,/So we cut out Farage/ And threw darts at his smirk.’ And Paul

What the papers say: The ‘enemies of the people’ row rumbles on

The Article 50 court cases sparked an angry backlash in the newspapers, with the judges involved famously labelled ‘enemies of the people’. Yesterday was the day the Supreme Court president Lord Neuberger hit back: Neuberger criticised politicians for being slow to defend judges and said the attacks on the justice system risked undermining the rule of law. One of his (unspoken) targets was the Daily Mail, which rallied against the ‘out of touch’ judges involved. Was the coverage too much? The Mail says not. In its editorial this morning, the paper offers a rare compliment to Neuberger, saying that his ‘outstanding intellect and integrity’ is not in question. But the paper goes

Why the Lords won’t block Brexit

The government has no majority in the House of Lords and a majority of peers were pro-Remain. But despite this, the Article 50 Bill will get through the Lords I argue in The Sun this morning. Why, because the reason that we still have an unelected chamber in the 21st century is that the House of Lords has a strong self-preservation instinct: it knows its limits. If the Lords were to try and block something that had been backed in a referendum and had passed the Commons with a majority of 372, then it would be endangering its very existence. Indeed, I understand that the Labour front bench have already

What the papers say: Would the Lords dare block Brexit?

Theresa May’s Brexit timetable is on track after MPs overwhelming backed the Government’s Article 50 bill in the Commons last night. Not everyone is happy with the role that Parliament has played so far in holding ministers’ feet to the fire over Brexit though. In its editorial this morning, the Guardian says MPs failed their first test: ‘Too many MPs genuflected’ to the referendum outcome – a result which the paper describes as one of the worst political decisions in the UK since the second world war. It seems as though the referendum took away Parliament’s power – and not even the ‘heroic efforts’ of Gina Miller in winning her

Will Theresa May’s Article 50 plan emerge unscathed from its final Commons test today?

After two days of testing Commons debates, Theresa May’s Brexit timetable remains on track. Yesterday’s ‘concession’ – or non-concession, depending on how you look at it – by ministers did enough to limit the extent of the Tory rebellion (only seven Conservative MPs went against the Government, despite earlier reports that as many as 20 backbenchers were considering doing so). This meant the Government’s Article 50 bill emerged unscathed. Of course all that could change this afternoon. Today’s debate will be the last opportunity for MPs hoping to tinker with the bill which will kick start Brexit. In the spirit of this week’s mammoth sessions, it’ll be another long debate,

What should we make of the Government’s ‘Deal or no Deal’ Brexit vote offer?

Given Theresa May’s largely meaningless ‘Brexit means Brexit’ refrain, any new pronouncement on Britain’s departure from the EU is treated like gold dust. But Keir Starmer fell into the trap of thinking Brexit minister David Jones’ opening remarks today had offered up a bigger morsel than they actually had. Jones confirmed, as Theresa May has already made clear, that Parliament will vote on the Brexit deal. He said, too, that the vote would cover the future trading relationship between Britain and the EU, which had not previously been known. And the Commons was also told some more details on the timing of the vote, which will come, Jones confirmed, before