Brexit

Wednesday

Andrew Willshire

Jess Phillips says she would make a good prime minister. I’m not convinced

On Saturday, the Times published a much-lauded interview with Jess Phillips. As with all her public outings, she comes across as decent, kind, funny, hard-working, honest, and down-to-earth. These are certainly fine qualities to have in an MP. But the interview concluded with Phillips stating that she thought she would be a good prime minister. Many people concurred. This should make us stop and consider whether we’re looking for the right qualities in a potential PM, especially given that we might be seeking a new one sooner rather than later as a result of Theresa May’s failure to get her Brexit deal through Parliament at the second attempt. Three things are required

James Forsyth James Forsyth

Row breaks out between the whips and Number 10

As if the government did not have enough troubles right now, a major row has erupted between the Whips’ Office and Number 10. The whips think that a Number 10 aide was telling ministers they were safe to abstain on the no to no deal motion, when there was a three-line whip to vote against it. After the amendment ruling out no deal in any circumstances passed, the government decided to whip against its own motion rather than allowing a free vote on it. This irritated a slew of Remain / soft Brexit ministers who wanted to vote against no deal. Sarah Newton resigned as a Minister of State to

James Forsyth James Forsyth

Meaningful vote 3 in the next seven days

Theresa May’s extension motion makes clear that she intends to bring her deal back for another vote in the next seven days. The motion states that if a meaningful vote has been passed by the 20th of March, then the government will request a short technical extension to pass the necessary Brexit legislation. (This request would be made at the European Council meeting next Thursday). But if no deal has been passed by the 20th, the UK would request a much longer extension — which would require the UK to participate in the EU Parliament elections. So, it is clear that the government are going to try and pass the

Isabel Hardman Isabel Hardman

Fear and loathing in the lobbies: how the government whipped against itself – and lost

With just a few minutes to go before the division on the government’s motion on no deal, Tory MPs’ phones started buzzing. It was a message from the whips, telling them that the free vote they’d been promised since last night was now subject to a three line whip: the strongest possible instruction on how to vote. But there was no further explanation. A message from Chris Pincher, the deputy chief whip, read: ‘We are voting no to the amended motion. This is a 3 line whip.’ It was sent at 7.31pm. Some Conservatives didn’t get this message until they were walking through the lobbies, still believing that, as Theresa

Katy Balls Katy Balls

The latest government shambles could help May pass her deal

This evening Theresa May’s week went from awful to terrible. After her deal was heavily defeated for a second time on Tuesday night, the Prime Minister had planned to placate MPs by offering them a free vote on whether they wished to try and rule out a no deal Brexit. As Isabel reports on Coffee House, that plan soon backfired. A backbench amendment from Tory MP Caroline Spelman to try and rule out no deal in more explicit terms than the government’s motion passed by four votes. At that point, the government changed its voting strategy and whipped its MPs to vote against the motion – effectively voting to keep

Rod Liddle Rod Liddle

Tory Brexiteers were wrong not to back May’s useless deal

Amongst the wrath we should pour upon our elected politicians – yes, especially the Tory Remainers and Labour’s bereft and shameless MPs – let’s keep some in reserve for the stoic, hardline, Brexiteers, huh? I’m with them: no deal is better than her deal. I agree. But – and this is the argument I’ve been having with people for the last three weeks, maybe longer – there is no prospect of no deal going through. None whatsoever. You can cleave to the idea of it for as long as you like, but there is not the remotest prospect of it happening. Why do they not understand this? You have to

Isabel Hardman Isabel Hardman

Government in chaos after rebel no deal amendment passes

Theresa May has just suffered another extraordinary defeat, losing on Caroline Spelman’s amendment (which rules out no-deal Brexit under any circumstances) by just four votes. This was not expected. Spelman even tried to withdraw the amendment, but was too late. This Spelman amendment said that the House “rejects the United Kingdom leaving the European Union without a Withdrawal Agreement and a Framework for the Future Relationship.”. This is different to the main motion, which offers a caveat: specifically a declaration that ‘leaving without a deal remains the default in UK and EU law unless this House and the EU ratify an agreement’. The Spelman amendment is not legally binding: it’s

The Spectator

Full list: The Tory MPs that voted to keep no deal on the table

Theresa May has just been dealt another blow after the House of Commons voted decisively against a no-deal Brexit. MPs voted by 321 to 308 for a motion which rejects the UK leaving the EU without a deal, under any circumstances. The motion did not force the government to either revoke Article 50 or to request an extension, and so the UK will still leave without a deal on 29 March, until other arrangements are put in place. These are the 265 Tory MPs that did back a no-deal Brexit being kept on the table: Nigel Adams, Adam Afriyie, Peter Aldous, Lucy Allan, David Amess, Stuart Andrew, Edward Argar, Victoria Atkins, Richard

Steerpike Steerpike

Tory MP: Brexit mess is like a ‘cat’s arse’

What’s the best way to describe Britain’s current Brexit situation? ‘Mess’ and ‘disaster’ probably spring to mind. But Mr S would also find it hard to disagree with the verdict of Trudy Harrison. The Tory MP delivered this verdict: ‘We were just discussing in my office how we would describe the current situation, and using good old Cumbrian terminology we were really torn between whether it’s a pig’s ear, a dog’s dinner or a cat’s arse’ Perhaps all three?

Lloyd Evans Lloyd Evans

Is Philip Hammond to blame for the knife-crime epidemic?

The Chancellor, Philip Hammond, breezed into the Commons to deliver a languid and greatly abridged Spring Statement. He had the genial air of a president-for-life emerging from his palace to correct the mis-steps of a bungling and soon-to-be-discarded Prime Minister. He dished out a few hundred million quid on various worthy schemes (save-the-hedgehog projects; free sanitary towels for school-girls) and he added some passing references to Brexit. A ‘cloud’ he called it. ‘A spectre of uncertainty.’ It sounded like a minor niggle which he could resolve while signing his morning correspondence. He used encrypted language, of course. He said that tomorrow’s vote on Article 50 will ‘map out a way

Charles Moore Charles Moore

Michael Gove’s Brexit agony

I feel particularly sorry for Michael Gove, because there is psychological torment here. His understandable reasoning for not resigning over Theresa May’s Chequers proposal was that he had been accused first of betraying David Cameron, then of betraying Boris Johnson. He could not face being accused of a third betrayal by walking out on Mrs May. This meant that he unintentionally betrayed the cause of Brexit. He is now the government’s media apologist for whatever piece of contortion comes out of Downing Street, and is humiliated when the line he has just peddled collapses a few hours later. This article is an extract from Charles Moore’s Spectator Notes, which appears in

Matthew Lynn

Philip Hammond’s Spring Statement was a missed opportunity

As Philip Hammond rose to the despatch box to deliver his Spring Statement, the Chancellor must have felt like someone who wanted to talk about the funny noise the radiator was making half-way through extra-time of England’s World Cup semi-final last summer. Everyone’s attention was understandably elsewhere. If he was feeling mischievous he could have probably abolished inheritance tax, or slapped VAT on children’s clothes, safe in the knowledge that amid all the Brexit chaos it would have been safely forgotten by about 2pm. And yet, even by his own lugubrious standards, Hammond surely missed an opportunity. There is nothing wrong with a bit of small-scale fiddling – a review

James Forsyth James Forsyth

Philip Hammond tore up the Brexit script at his Spring Statement

Brexit was always going to dominate this Spring Statement. Philip Hammond even began by saying he’d keep it short to allow the Commons to move on to the ‘no deal’ debate. But the most eye-catching thing Hammond said on Brexit came at the very end. He talked about the need to build consensus across the House. This is Westminster code for a customs union style solution. Hammond has been making the case for this approach at Cabinet for quite a while now. But it isn’t yet Government policy—most ministers still think that there is a chance May’s deal could pass in a third meaningful vote. So it was quite remarkable

Isabel Hardman Isabel Hardman

Hammond to MPs: make up your mind on Brexit or the domestic policies get it

Philip Hammond’s squeeze message to MPs trying to work out how to vote on Brexit over the next few days was clear: if they don’t reach a consensus, then there won’t be lots of lovely spending on important domestic policies such as social care.  Theresa May has been so busy procrastinating on Brexit that her failure to make decisions on these policy areas has not attracted the level of attention it deserves. The social care green paper, for instance, has been pushed back by over a year. This isn’t as much to do with Brexit as ministers like to make out, by the way, but all the same it is

Charles Moore Charles Moore

The problem with Theresa May

I had forgotten, until I checked this week, that Theresa May timed the general election of June 2017 in order to have a mandate for the Brexit negotiations. They began ten days after the nation voted. She conveyed no sense, at the time, of how the election result had changed her situation. In her beginning is her end. Political leadership requires imagination. She has never displayed any. Why, for example, did she fly to Strasbourg on Monday night? She made the same mistake in December 2017 when she took a dawn flight to Brussels after making a hash of the Irish problem. The point of dramatically winging your way out

Ross Clark Ross Clark

The no-deal Brexit tariffs are nothing to be afraid of

What strange knots some tie themselves in over Brexit. The attitude of some of those opposed to Britain leaving the EU is this when it comes to free trade: when conducted with the EU, it is essential for our prosperity. But when conducted with any other country it is a dark threat to our very being. How else to explain the reaction of CBI director-general Carolyn Fairbairn to the publication of the Government’s proposed tariff rates, which would apply in the even of a no-deal Brexit. The new regime would see some tariffs imposed on EU goods which currently enter the country tariff-free – 18 per cent of EU imports by

Alex Massie Alex Massie

The Brexiteers have blown it | 13 March 2019

If, as Rod Liddle says, Brexit has been killed there is no shortage of suspects. 75 of them, in fact. That’s the number of Conservative MPs who voted against the Government in last night’s second – but not necessarily final – meaningful vote. They wanted Brexit and then, when they were given it, they decided it wasn’t the kind of Brexit they wanted after all.  Fanaticism invariably devours its adherents and so it is with Brexit. The Brexiteers wanted the ball but once they had it they decided they did not actually want it after all. They had their chance and they blew it. All they had to do was

Tuesday

Geoffrey Cox

“The backstop risk is unchanged”: Geoffrey Cox’s full legal advice

Geoffrey Cox, the Attorney General, has published his verdict on the EU’s concessions. He reminds us that in his last judgement, the backstop “could not be brought to an end in the absence of a subsequent [UK-EU] agreement. This would remain the case even if parties were still negotiating many years later, and even if the parties believed that talks have clearly broken down.” There is now a reduced risk of this, he says. But his final sentence makes clear that the risk remains and if talks do break down, “However, the legal risk remains unchanged that if through no such demonstrable failure of either party, but simply because of

Johannes de Jong

Why the EU is so keen for Theresa May’s Brexit deal to pass

In recent weeks, two big beasts in the European political arena pushed forward their respective ideas for the future of the European Union. France’s president Emmanuel Macron repeated his dream of a big EU. And the leader of Germany’s Christian Democratic Union Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer responded in kind with a vision of an EU that is larger than it is now but smaller than the EU ‘a la Macron’. In both visions, the reality of Brexit was conspicuously absent. The decision to ignore Brexit in these visions of the future EU is easily understood if one gets the updated ‘deal’ that Theresa May struck with the EU overnight. ‘This is it’,

Charles Day

The silence from Geoffrey Cox bodes ill for May’s deal

The loudest sound this morning is the silence from Geoffrey Cox, the Attorney-General. The test for Theresa May’s discussion with Brussels is whether it means the UK will be caught indefinitely in the backstop. And the person who decides this is Mr Cox. No10 misrepresented the nature of the backstop when it was signed: some (then) Cabinet members go further and say that they were lied to. Then No10’s own representation of the Withdrawal Agreement was contradicted by the Attorney-General. This is what led us to this point: No10 has, alas, proved that it cannot be trusted to interpret legal advice. Cox has proven that he can be trusted.  Cox