Brexit

Will there be fireworks on day two of the Brexit bill debate?

The Government’s Article 50 bill emerged unscathed from yesterday’s first committee stage. Today won’t be so easy. As Isabel Hardman pointed out in her coverage of last night’s session, the real fireworks are expected this afternoon. The session will kick off at 1.30pm and end at around 8.30pm - giving seven hours for MPs to work their way through a series of amendments. Whether these pass or not will be the difference between Theresa May meeting or breaking her self-imposed deadline of triggering Article 50 by April Fools Day. The list of amendments which will be voted on tonight is - like yesterday’s order paper - a long one.

Government defeats all amendments in first Brexit Bill Committee fight

MPs are finally making their way out of Parliament - or staying for Ed Miliband’s late night adjournment debate - after the first day of Committee Stage of the Article 50 Bill. As explained earlier, the real fireworks are expected tomorrow, and any flashes of drama today came from MPs complaining about the lack of time available for scrutiny. This ended rather noisily in a roaring match between Alex Salmond and Deputy Speaker Lindsay Hoyle over the amount of time allocated to the SNP for speeches in the extended session. Earlier, MPs had chastised Natascha Engel when she was in the Chair for not allowing a number of amendments to proceed to a vote. The Deputy Speakers were getting it in the neck when the fault for the lack of time available for scrutiny lies with the Government.

Tonight’s Brexit debate: What happens and when

Now that the Supreme Court has ruled that Parliament must have its say on Brexit, it seems MPs are determined to make the most of it. After last week’s mammoth debate, today’s session on amendments to the Government’s White Paper will drag on until the early hours of tomorrow morning. It’s expected to finish up at around 1am – keeping Brexit aficionados, as well as MPs from all sides and the Government busy. But what will they be discussing? Here's the Spectator's guide to tonight's Brexit session: After Theresa May’s Commons statement on the European Council meeting, tonight’s Commons session will essentially split into two parts. The first, expected to last from 4.

Insistent, splenetic, almost crazed – Brexiteers are being driven mad by Brexit

I am worried about the mental state of many Brexiteers. The author of The Spectator’s weekly Notes, Charles Moore, always a sharp observer of the passing scene, noticed my worry almost before I noticed it myself. He complained here a few weeks ago that I’m citing among my reasons for distrusting the Leave case the fact that so many of its adherents strike me as headbangers. He went on to suggest I’ve become psychologically incapable of even listening to their argument. Personality traits displayed by Brexit-eers do indeed worry me and help inform my response to their case. To help me weigh an argument, I’m in the habit of taking a long and careful look at the person making it.

Why don’t the EU’s pensioners in the Lords have to declare their interest?

‘A Bill to confer power on the prime minister to notify, under Article 50(2)…’. When it comes to the House of Lords, some of those trying to amend or delay the bill will be paid pensioners of the European Commission. Peers are obliged to declare any interest that ‘might be thought by a reasonable member of the public’ to influence the way they discharge their parliamentary duties — unless it is an EU pension. In 2007, a Lords subcommittee said that because their contracts oblige them to support the EU, an EC pensioner who made ‘intemperate criticism of the commission’ would have contravened their obligations under the Treaty of Rome ‘and therefore could in theory damage his pension’.

What the papers say: The verdict on the Government’s Brexit White Paper

What does the Government’s Brexit White Paper - which was unveiled yesterday - actually tell us? ‘Nothing and everything’, says the Guardian, which accuses ministers of dishing up a document stuffed with ‘platitudes and empty rhetoric’. But for all the lightness of detail, the White Paper reveals a bigger truth: a ‘troubling form of politics, where ministers can pursue their interest without compromise’. The Guardian says the published document offers ‘no scrutiny’ and nothing but ‘contempt’ for Parliament.

Diary – 2 February 2017

 ‘A Bill to confer power on the prime minister to notify, under Article 50(2)…’. When it comes to the House of Lords, some of those trying to amend or delay the bill will be paid pensioners of the European Commission. Peers are obliged to declare any interest that ‘might be thought by a reasonable member of the public’ to influence the way they discharge their parliamentary duties — unless it is an EU pension. In 2007, a Lords subcommittee said that because their contracts oblige them to support the EU, an EC pensioner who made ‘intemperate criticism of the commission’ would have contravened their obligations under the Treaty of Rome ‘and therefore could in theory damage his pension’.

Is the government trying to avoid scrutiny of its Brexit policy?

Is the government trying to avoid scrutiny of its Brexit policy? That’s the charge that MPs on the Labour and SNP benches are levelling at ministers today as the White Paper on leaving the European Union is published. Keir Starmer told the Commons this afternoon that he and his colleagues were being hampered in their attempts to ask decent questions and properly scrutinise the government’s approach because they had been handed the document just minutes before David Davis gave his statement on the publication. The SNP’s Stephen Gethins complained that the whole situation was a ‘mess’ and that Parliament was being mistreated. These complaints were echoed from the benches behind them.

The Bank of England is (slowly) overcoming its Brexophobia

It has been clear for some time that the pre-referendum warnings made by Bank of England governor Mark Carney were wide of the mark. Last May, he said that a vote for Brexit would pose an ‘immediate and significant threat’ to the UK economy, increasing unemployment, hitting growth, possibly to the point of recession. Today, however, the bank effectively admits that it was still being far too gloomy about the economy even last November. It upgraded its forecast for economic growth in 2017 from 1.4 per cent (as announced in the Autumn statement) to two per cent – saying that consumer spending has been stronger than expected and that the global economy as a whole has been performing better. The wonder is now why on Earth the Bank of England kept interest rates at 0.

Baroness Trumpington turns to the bottle in the name of liberty

On Thursday afternoon, lovers of liberty and lovers of daytime drinking came together to celebrate Boisdale Life's inaugural Libertarian of the Year Awards. As MPs prepared to vote for Article 50 in the Commons, those who had done their bit for individual liberties were honoured at Boisdale Belgravia. 'I was particularly impressed to hear this chap on the radio defending smoking in cars with children,' Simon Clark, the director of Forest, remarked as he declared the Institute of Economic Affairs' Mark Littlewood 'Libertarian of the Year'. 'This is an issue we've been opposing the past two years and it's not because we condone it, nobody in their right mind would light a cigar in a small space with a child.

What the papers say: Brexit ‘lift off’

The period of ‘phoney Brexit’ is over, says the Daily Telegraph in its editorial this morning. After MPs overwhelming backed the Government on the triggering of Article 50 in last night's historic vote, one thing is now clear: ‘there is no way back’. It’s obvious, the Telegraph says, that whatever happens next, the process is not going to be easy. Sir Ivan Rogers told a Commons committee yesterday that the Brexit negotiations will be the biggest undertaken since the Second World War - and possibly the biggest ever; he’s right, says the Telegraph.

Jaipur Notebook

Did Winston Churchill, like Donald Trump, also like to ‘grab them by the pussy?’ Last week at the Jaipur Literary Festival, I was on a panel discussion entitled ‘Churchill: Hero or Villain?’, where the Indian biographer Shrabani Basu told a large crowd that at a suffragettes’ demonstration outside Parliament in November 1910, Churchill, then home secretary, had ‘given instructions for police that they can batter the women and assault the women and sexually assault them as well’. He allegedly told policemen to ‘put their hands up their thighs, they can grope them and press their breasts’. ‘Can I just point out that that is completely untrue?’ I intervened.

This is not a strong government – so why isn’t the opposition opposing it?

‘For heaven’s sake, man, go!’ A week after the Brexit referendum, and that was David Cameron at the despatch box, on Jeremy Corbyn. It might be in the Tories’ interest for Corbyn to be leading the opposition, said Cameron, but it wasn’t in Britain’s, and he should push off sharpish. At the time, it sounded a lot like deflection. As in, wind your neck in, Hamface. You’re the one who just lost a referendum and your own career, so don’t go blaming it on wild-eyed Grampa Simpson over there, just because he was too busy making jam to do enough press conferences. Latterly, though, I have begun to realise that Cameron was speaking not out of pique, but fear.

Brexiteers need ladders to climb down

I am worried about the mental state of many Brexiteers. The author of The Spectator’s weekly Notes, Charles Moore, always a sharp observer of the passing scene, noticed my worry almost before I noticed it myself. He complained here a few weeks ago that I’m citing among my reasons for distrusting the Leave case the fact that so many of its adherents strike me as headbangers. He went on to suggest I’ve become psychologically incapable of even listening to their argument. Personality traits displayed by Brexit-eers do indeed worry me and help inform my response to their case. To help me weigh an argument, I’m in the habit of taking a long and careful look at the person making it.

Labour’s Article 50 rebels expose Corbyn’s lack of authority

The government's Brexit bill has been given the green light by Parliament. On Wednesday evening, MPs voted in favour by 498 votes to 114 to give Theresa May the power to trigger Article 50 and begin formal Brexit talks. A separate SNP amendment to stop the bill from progressing was also defeated, by a comfortable majority of 236. The bill will now pass to the committee stage where there could be more scope for rebellion as MPs try to add amendments. While there could still be Tory rebellions down the line, it was only Ken Clarke who broke rank and voted against the government. It was a different story for opposition parties: not even the Liberal Democrats could get all nine of their MPs into the same lobby tonight, with two abstaining.

If Corbyn couldn’t Trump Theresa at today’s PMQs, when can he?

Today should have been a good PMQs for Jeremy Corbyn. He had the chance to denounce Donald Trump and embarrass Theresa May over his actions, as Prime Minister she is—obviously—constrained in what she can say about the US president. But May had come well prepared and ended up besting Corbyn. She hit at his fundamental weakness, when she declared ‘he can lead a protest, I’m leading the country’. Perhaps, the most substantive moment of the session came when Corbyn asked for a guarantee that the NHS wouldn’t be opened up to US companies as part of a US / UK trade deal. May replied, ‘The NHS is not for sale’.

What the papers say: Parliament’s ‘marathon of Brexit whingeing’

MPs will finally vote tonight on the triggering of Article 50, and for wavering Parliamentarians, the Sun has some advice. It says that yesterday’s debate was a ‘marathon of Brexit whingeing’ which saw MPs recycle ‘reheated Project Fear doom-mongering’. Instead, they should listen to their colleague Tory MP Julian Lewis, whose contribution consisted of just nine words: 'The people have decided. I’m going to vote accordingly'. ‘That is now all it boils down to,’ the Sun says. The Daily Telegraph is more optimistic about Parliament’s contribution to the Brexit debate.

Brexit Bill debate: MPs are confused about their job description

The debate over the Bill allowing the government to trigger Article 50 has been surprisingly good-natured, so far, given the stakes. There have been some impressive speeches from all sides, and even some humour. We have learned very little about what the Bill entails and have been largely unsurprised by what each MP has said: Labour is in a very miserable place and shadow Brexit secretary Keir Starmer laboured this point with great feeling. Ken Clarke opposed the referendum, opposes leaving and isn’t going to change his mind.

Today’s Brexit debate is likely to be a tame affair

MPs are now debating the government’s European Union (notification of withdrawal) Bill, with a warning from Theresa May and Brexit Secretary David Davis that to try to block the legislation would be to thwart the will of the British people. The Prime Minister said last night that ‘I hope when people look at the Article 50 bill they will recognise that it is a very simple decision - do they support the will of the British people or not’, while Davis will ask MPs whether they ‘trust the people or not’ as he opens the Second Reading stage of the Bill. There is a funny symmetry here between the bill that enabled the referendum in the first place, and this legislation which starts to enact the result of that referendum.