Brexit

Although no-one yet knows what the government’s compromise meaningful vote amendment will look like when it returns to the Lords, there’s a growing feeling in Westminster that it is the Tory Remain rebels who have the upper hand. Even if the government doesn’t go far enough to appease these MPs in its verbal promise of some kind of ‘meaningful’ say on the final deal, this group are bullish and increasingly confident that they can tie the government’s hands the next time the bill returns. This has led to increasing concern among the Brexiteers. Talk of ‘no deal is better than a bad deal’ is now viewed as a hollow threat.

I hate to take issue with a fellow Spectator writer, but Robert Peston’s revelation that a “no deal” Brexit is now off the table strikes me as a prime example of Westminster’s ability to ignore the bleeding obvious for months on end then talk cobblers in an authoritative voice when finally forced to confront reality. Robert is far from alone in his conclusion about last night’s Commons vote. To be honest, I’m just taking issue with his post because the spectacle of Spectator writers disagreeing seems to interest some people, probably because they struggle with the idea of one publication publishing multiple and contradictory viewpoints. I’m happy to oblige that

Given this morning’s ministerial resignation, all looked set fair for an afternoon of high drama in the Commons over the EU Withdrawal Bill. In the end, though, the drama was rather quieter, with the government managing to persuade the Remainer rebels to stand down – temporarily – on the matter of a ‘meaningful vote’. Chief Whip Julian Smith spent the majority of the debate buzzing about the Chamber, consulting with ministers and backbenchers and also beckoning MPs out of the room in little groups. It is since clear that Smith was negotiating the compromise that Solicitor General Robert Buckland started offering during the debate. Initially, Buckland offered the rebels ‘structured

Imagine the industrial levels of brass neck it must require for EU-supporting MPs to present themselves as defenders of parliamentary sovereignty. That’s what they’re doing today, on ‘Brexit Super Tuesday’, as they start voting on the Lords’ amendments to the government’s Brexit Bill. They say they are backing the amendment that would give MPs a ‘meaningful vote’ on the final Brexit deal because they love parliamentary sovereignty that much. Pull the other. These are people who for years happily handed over huge swathes of law-making to Brussels bureaucrats and would still like EU law to enjoy supremacy over UK law. They support parliamentary sovereignty like an electric chair supports your

Although Theresa May managed to unite her MPs briefly on Monday night and put off a customs union confrontation on today’s EU withdrawal bill votes, not everything is going to plan. Philip Lee has this morning broken that truce and resigned as justice minister to fight Brexit. Speaking at a Bright Blue event, Lee said that he was returning to the backbench so that he could speak out on the government’s Brexit policy – which, he says, threatens human rights: I am incredibly sad to have had to announce my resignation as a minister in Her Majesty’s Government so that I can better speak up for my constituents and country

David Davis, the Brexit secretary of state and arguably the most important minister in this government other than the Prime Minister, faces a moment of truth tomorrow. He is completely clear that it would be a disastrous mistake for the Prime Minister and the UK government to offer Brussels a backstop proposal for keeping the Irish border open that does not contain a specified end date. His reason is simple. That backstop would commit the UK to staying in the customs union and single market. And once the EU were to have that commitment, Davis believes – plausibly – that his Brussels interlocutor Michel Barnier would no longer have any

Boris Johnson’s critics happily queued up to take a pop at the Foreign Secretary when he said his position on Brexit was to ‘have our cake and eat it’. Yet it seems the Labour party is determined to take the same approach. Keir Starmer says Labour wants ‘full access to the internal market’ while retaining the ‘benefits of the single market’, even though the party has already ruled out free movement of people – a key EU demand. It fell to shadow transport secretary, Andy McDonald, to attempt to defend Labour’s ‘have-it-both-ways’ attitude to Brexit this morning: Andrew Neil: Why would the EU agree to giving us full access without one

The government’s proposal for a UK-wide backstop will not contain an end date. This, as the Times’ Sam Coates points out, is bound to be controversial. For if the backstop contains no end date, it could end up running indefinitely. Indeed, with the UK in a customs union and having to follow EU rules on goods and agriculture, it is hard to see what incentive the EU would have to discuss a trade deal. After all, what would be left to discuss would be services: where the UK has a £92 billion surplus. There is a meeting of the Brexit inner Cabinet tomorrow. But as Tom Newton Dunn and Harry Cole