Brexit: MPs vote 308-297 in favour of amendment for three-day 'plan B' deadline - Politics live

The EU withdrawal agreement debate is still chugging along, presided over by the Speaker John Bercow.

Liberal Democrat MP Jo Swinson has renewed calls for a People’s Vote - an increasingly popular option within the House of Commons, and one which this newspaper supports – applauding members of Parliament for “coming together beyond party lines to push for the public to have a final say on the deal”.

She restated that the UK’s interests are best served within the European Union, criticising the fact that “the energy of parliament has been sucked into the black hole of Brexit”, and stressing that leaving the EU will not enrich the UK – contrary to “the fantasies of the leave campaign.”

Labour MP Chris Elmore also said he will not vote for the deal since he “will not vote for my constituents to be poorer”.

Labour MP Pat McFadden said there have been no substantial changes to the proposals presented to MPs today, and that the agreement’s flaws go far beyond just the Northern Ireland backstop.

Owen Smith, the former Labour party leader candidate, has said that the proposed deal will make people poorer and will in fact cede sovereignty to the EU. “A deeply ironic state of affairs, not what was promised” he says, adding that the UK is increasingly becoming a “laughing stock” around the world.

Tory MP Julian Knight said that despite being “deeply concerned” by the backstop, he now supports the withdrawal agreement.

Harriet Harman and Ken Clarke are to call for a Westminster conference to tackle the abuse of politicians after Tory MP Anna Soubry was harassed as she attempted to enter Parliament this week.

The Mother of the House, Harman, said she wanted the conference to happen “immediately” and said it should not have to wait until after the UK is scheduled to leave the EU on March 29, adding that there has been an upswing in abuse against all MPs since Brexit.

“Are all MPs expected to be as fearless as Anna Soubry?” said Harman, adding there had been “too much hand-wringing” but no action to tackle the problem.

“We don’t want to drift into a situation where is does actually become dangerous to be an MP or you’ve got to risk danger, but we have to get the balance right, nobody wants MPs to be feather-bedded.

“We don’t want MPs who are looking over their shoulder, who are keeping their heads down, not holding open surgeries, who don’t travel on their own because they don’t want to come back late at night, this is all actually happening.”

The MP for Camberwell and Peckham spoke of how she had received death threats but didn’t report it for years because “I didn’t want to look like a victim or that I couldn’t stand up for myself”.

Harman said the Speaker John Bercow was keen to support the conference, and that she hopes organisation can begin from next week.

Owen Jones, the Guardian columnist, tweeted earlier:

Anti-Brexit campaigners warned backbench MPs as they arrived at Downing Street for a drinks reception tonight that voting for Theresa May’s Brexit deal will lead to “the mother of all hangovers”.

It is the second such event so far this week as May seeks to gain support for her proposed deal more informal settings than the Commons ahead of the withdrawal agreement vote on Tuesday.

Jacob Rees-Mogg, chair of the influential European Research Group, was among those in attendance, with much resting on whether May can depend on the support of the arch-Brexiteers within her party.

The Guardian’s political editor Heather Stewart has taken stock of what the PM has left to offer her MP’s: very little.

Kevin Schofield, Politics Home editor, tweets:

Seven former Speakers of the House of Commons have been executed, writes John Crace, the Guardian’s parliamentary sketch writer.

To judge by the looks on the faces of many on the government benches, John Bercow came dangerously close to becoming the eighth.

Nicholas Watt, BBC Newsnight’s political editor, tweets that Tory MP and government loyalist Hugo Swire has admitted his amendment cannot override the withdrawal agreement.

Swire’s amendment means that the government would accept six new conditions relating to the backstop. However, these have been dismissed by an expert as mostly meaningless or undeliverable; while Jacob Rees-Mogg has said the Swire amendment would, in an case, by “trumped by the withdrawal agreement”.

Sources close to the European Research Group have told the BBC’s Laura Kuennsberg that the amendment may cause a small number of rebels to support the government, “but it is not a game changer”.

The Guardian’s associate editor Martin Kettle writes that John Bercow bravely and corrected allowed for a vote on the Grieve amendment, empowering parliament against the government on Brexit at a pivotal moment.

John Bercow can sometimes seem to be auditioning to play Shakespeare’s Malvolio. The House of Commons Speaker has at times a comic degree of self-esteem that is the equal of the arrogant steward in Twelfth Night. Like Malvolio, Bercow can also drive colleagues to distraction, as he did today. Today, though, Bercow took a brave stand to empower Britain’s parliament against Britain’s government on Brexit. And that qualifies him to be considered the most radical holder of his office in generations. Like Malvolio, a version of greatness has been thrust upon him.

The vast majority of people are understandably not well versed in Commons procedure. So it may seem strange to claim that a decision to allow an amendment to be moved on a Commons timetable motion – and with no debate – is in any way immense. Nevertheless, Bercow’s decision to allow the all-party effort, led by the Conservative former attorney general Dominic Grieve, to tie the government’s hands – it must come back with a plan B within three days if the Brexit deal is defeated next week – deserves such accolades.

Steve Bell’s cartoon on events today in Parliament:

Parliament is biased towards Remain and is “doing everything in its power” to obstruct the Leave votes of 17.4 million, claims the pro-Brexit group Change Britain.

After MP’s today voted to force Theresa May to promptly present them with a new Brexit plan if her current proposal is voted down – sparking chaos and accusations that the Speaker John Bercow exhibited partiality in allowing Dominic Grieve, the Tory MP that supports a second referendum, to make the initial amendment – the Change Britain chair Gisela Stewart said:

This Remain Parliament is doing everything in its power to obstruct the Leave votes of 17.4 million. Voters quite rightly expected their politicians to respect the result of the referendum and implement it accordingly.

But pro-EU MPs seeking to use every parliamentary trick in the book to block Brexit are simply damaging the public’s trust in democracy. ‘People voted to take back control as they felt politicians had failed to listen to their concerns for years.

The actions of Remain MPs today suggest they have no intention of changing this any time soon.

The government has awarded a number of leading global consultancy firms with Brexit-related contracts worth £75m, it has emerged.

Sky News reports that the deals were brokered in April and had not been widely announced, with details of the plans discreetly published on a government website just before Christmas, eight months later.

In contrast to a certain start-up ferry company, all of the companies involved are well-known – including Deloitte, Accenture, PwC, Bain, McKinsey and Boston Consulting.

Each company received a contract for “the supply of Cabinet Office consultancy support for EU Exit” worth between £5m and £10m, according to the report.

Rushanara Ali, the Labour MP, has just delivered a speech stating that she will not be supporting the government’s deal. Following the dramatic events in the House of Commons today, she sums up a feeling likely to be shared among MPs from all parties.

“[Theresa May] is holding a metaphorical gun, Mr Speaker, to our heads, by giving us this false choice between her deal and no deal. It is utterly irresponsible and she .. and her ministers need to stop doing that. We will not accept this false choice.”

The MP for Bethnal Green & Bow quotes figures released by the Bank of England that warned a no-deal Brexit could shrink the UK economy by 8%, with unemployment rising as inflation spiralled out of control. This would be “catastrophic,” she says.

“My constituency will be among the worst off, as will be many other constituencies in terms of job losses under a no deal situation.”

According to the UK Trade Policy Observatory and the University of Sussex, thousands of people in her constituency would lose their jobs. “There is no majority for crashing out of the EU with no deal,” she says. “And yesterday’s amendment to the finance bill demonstrates that.

I believe that there is a majority Mr Speaker, in seeking to secure a permanent customs union and single market access, and the government should be seeking to do that. And as the government is running down the clock, article 50 must be revoked.

But of course, the best deal we have on offer is membership of the EU. The government promised the exact same benefits and they now offer something that is going to be damaging to our economy.

Here are three articles worth reading about John Bercow’s procedural ruling today.

• Anne Perkins at the Guardian says Bercow is endangering his office.

The real point about Bercow’s actions is the furious accusations of party bias that it has provoked from his critics. “The political impartiality of the Speaker is a key feature of the office, while the role’s authority has developed over time alongside other procedural reforms” intones the Commons guide to the office of Speaker. It’s one thing to stand up for backbenchers against a powerful executive. It’s quite another to use the office to advance a political cause.

In the end, the judgment will rest on whether the failure of government and parliament as a whole to find any grounds for agreement on Brexit legitimises intervention on one side by the Speaker – or whether instead it marks a wanton disregard for the rule of law. Everyone knows where unchecked law-breaking can lead. The Speaker takes a grave risk when he appears to ignore the rules. At the least, it makes it harder to insist the government observes the rules next time.

• Steven Swinford at the Telegraph (paywall) says John Bercow was “livid” when the clerks told him he should not accept the Grieve amendment.

Sir David Natzler, the Clerk of the Commons and the authority on parliamentary procedure, advised Mr Bercow on Wednesday morning that the Grieve amendment “should not be touched” because it went against the “standing orders of the House”.

Mr Bercow was told twice by the clerks that the amendment should not be accepted. However a source said he was “livid” and refused to accept their advice, referring to them as a “gaggle”.

After overruling Sir David, Bercow went ahead and selected the amendment before heading directly for the Chamber. Shortly before prime minister’s questions Julian Smith, the chief whip, approached Mr Bercow in the Speaker’s chair to challenge his decision.

Allowing the amendment to be tabled, he argued, would damage parliament. He was dismissed by Mr Bercow, who was overheard saying as Mr Smith returned to the Tory benches that he wouldn’t be “bullied” by Conservative whips.

• Isabel Hardman at the Spectator says Bercow’s conduct is a serious constitutional issue.

Today Speaker Bercow told the House of Commons that he could disregard precedent and change procedure as he wished, while admitting that he hadn’t fully thought through the implications of this. The reason, for those who are understandably befuddled by this row, that there were so many points of order is that Bercow had decided to accept an amendment to the business motion for today’s Brexit debate which would give May just three days to return to the Commons with new plans if her Brexit deal fails to pass next week’s meaningful vote. It has been reported that Bercow was advised by the clerks that such an amendment was not in line with Commons procedure, and Bercow as good as admitted that today, telling Jacob Rees-Mogg that he would reflect on the points that he had made. This shows that the Speaker has not thought through the precedent that his own actions would set.

On the subject of delaying article 50 (see 5.02pm), it is worth quoting in detail what Theresa May said about this at PMQs in response to a question from the Tory Brexiter Julian Lewis. Lewis said:

According to that invaluable website TheyWorkForYou, the prime minister has assured the House on no fewer than 74 previous occasions that we will be leaving the EU on 29 March. Will she categorically confirm today that there is absolutely no question at all of delaying that date?

And May replied:

I am happy to repeat what I have said previously—that we will be leaving the European Union on 29 March. I want us to leave the European Union on 29 March with the good deal that is on the table.

You’ll notice that May did not give Lewis the absolute assurance that he wanted.

This is not the first time May or one of her ministers has said something implying an extending article 50 is now being seen as a possible option, although Number 10 has said publicly that this will not happen.

According to the Telegraph’s Jack Maidment, 17 Tory MPs rebelled against the government and voted for the Grieve amendment.

Sky’s Beth Rigby says she has been told Jeremy Corbyn will call for an extension of article 50 in a big Brexit speech he is giving tomorrow morning.

She also says that someone else has told her not to expect that (although it is not unusual for parties, when they plan to make news with a particular announcement, to discourage journalists from reporting it too early).

In the Commons earlier Sir Keir Starmer, the shadow Brexit secretary, said that he did not think it would be possible to leave the EU on 29 March. (See 3.52pm.) He also said extending article 50 “may well be inevitable”.

At various points in the Brexit saga Labour has called for things which the government has subsequently adopted. Starmer (as he reminded MPs in the debate today) first demanded a “meaningful vote”, which has now more or less been conceded (depending on how you define it). Labour also said the UK should offer a unilateral guarantee that EU nationals living in the UK will retain the right to stay whatever happens, which the government for a long time resisted, but eventually accepted.

Labour called for a transition period and, after delaying, the government did accept that that would be necessary. And then Labour called for a permanent customs union with the EU, which is similar to what is implied by the Chequers plan and the political declaration, even though the government insists that technically the UK would not be a member.

Andrew Mitchell, the Tory former chief whip and former international development secretary, is speaking now. He says he does not often speak on Brexit. But he is intervening to say he is opposed to Theresa May’s Brexit deal. It is “the worst common denominator”. It will satisfy neither leavers nor remainers.

George Osborne, the Conservative former chancellor and a pro-European, has backed John Bercow in his decision earlier to accept the Grieve amendment.

Starmer says a no-deal Brexit is “practically not viable” by 29 March. He has visited Dover and is aware of all the problems there would be, he says.

He says Labour would fight a no-deal Brexit “tooth and nail”.

Not having a deal acceptable to MPs is a “tragic waste” of the last two years, he says.

He says after the vote on Tuesday next week the house will have to decide what it wants to do next.

Back in the debate Starmer says Tory MPs now say it was always obvious that the political declaration on the future relationship would be relatively vague at this point.

But in her Lancaster House speech in January 2017, May said that by the time the UK left the EU, she wanted to have reached an agreement about the future partnership. She then wanted “a phased process of implementation”. Starmer says he argued at the time that there would have to be a transition. But May said it would be an “implementation period” – implying the future arrangement would already been agreed.

He says this shows why what May is offering is a blind Brexit.

And he says no one in the EU thinks that the negotiation on the future will be over by December 2020, he says.

Simon Usherwood, deputy director of UK in a Changing EU, an academic-led research project, has posted a Twitter thread assessing the six concessions announced by Stephen Barclay, the Brexit secretary, earlier. (See 3.22pm.) He is not impressed. The thread starts here.

Starmer turns to the political declaration on the future relationship.

He quotes from the paper, which talks about “a spectrum of different outcomes”. It is not a deal, he says. It is just “an options paper”.

Sir Oliver Letwin tries again. If there were a cross-party agreement on staying in a customs union, and a single market deal, on the basis of Norway or otherwise, would Labour cooperate with the government on a deal, so that the UK could leave on 29 March with a deal?

Starmer says there are other issues too. But if the UK is to leave with a deal, then there will have to be a consensus on something. He says at no point has the government reached out to Labour, even after the snap election. At some point he thought they might give him a ring, and ask what Labour wanted. He says the government instead has just whipped against opposition amendments, regardless of whether they were good amendments or bad amendments.

Sir Oliver Letwin, the Conservative former cabinet minister, intervenes. He says Labour says it wants “a permanent UK-EU customs union and a strong single market deal”. Letwin says he is speaking as someone who hopes that there will be a cross-party agreement on Brexit. Can Starmer explain what that means?

Starmer says he is interested in something that would be similar to the customs union, but not the same. He says he would like to explore this in talks with the EU. If it was a custom union like the one Turkey has with the EU, that would not be acceptable. And he says he would like something akin to single market membership, but not EEA membership. He accepts that these are issues that would have to be negotiated.

Sir Keir Starmer, the shadow Brexit secretary, is speaking in the debate now.

He says the government pulled the vote before Christmas because it accepted it needed to get changes to make it acceptable to MPs. He says that Liam Fox, the international trade secretary, even said that, without changes, the cabinet might not support taking the deal back to the Commons.

But, Starmer says, MPs are resuming the debate without the government having secured any changes.

Jacob Rees-Mogg, the Tory MP who chairs the European Research Group, which represents hardline Brexiters, is playing down the impact of the vote on the Grieve amendment.

Downing Street has made clear that if next week’s vote is lost, the prime minister would come back to the House of Commons and set out her plans well before the 21-day time-limit set out in the withdrawal act.

“We would seek to provide certainty, quickly,” a government spokesman said, speaking to journalists after PMQs.

He also insisted the government had received clear advice that suggested the motion was not amendable.

We are surprised the government amendment was selected; the advice we received was that it would not be in order.

Asked whether that advice was from Commons clerks – amid reports John Bercow personally overruled them – he added: “We have access to the resources of the House of Commons as well as our own.”

Asked about the role of Bercow, he said: “The Speaker’s impartiality is a matter for the house.”

The Commons is now hearing a 10-minute rule bill, from the Conservative Leo Docherty. We’re expecting the vote on the Grieve amendment (see 9.05am) shortly.

Bercow says it is not his job to push through a particular policy. It is simply his job to facilitate allowing the House of Commons to take its own decisions. That is what he is doing, and that approach should apply to Brexit too, he says.

Here are some tweets from opposition MPs applauding Bercow for his stance.

From Labour’s Ben Bradshaw

From Plaid Cymru’s Jonathan Edwards

From Angela Rayner, the shadow education secretary

From Labour’s Mary Creagh

From Labour’s Chuka Umunna

From the Evening Standard’s Joe Murphy

James Cleverly, a Conservative, says it is important for Bercow to be impartial, and to be seen to be impartial. He says it might have been wise not to take this decision, setting a new precedent, at such a contentious time.

Bercow says the responsibility is his. He has to take a decision now. And he is using his best judgment. He believes he is right, he says.

Bercow makes a similar point in response to another point of order.

My job is not to be a cheerleader for the executive branch. My job is to stand up for the rights of the House of Commons. And the Speaker will assuredly do so.

Asked by a Tory if he should consult his deputy speakers about this decision, Bercow says he won’t. He says he was elected to take these decisions. He won’t duck his responsibilities, he says.

Here is some Twitter comment on the Bercow row.

From Newsnight’s Nicholas Watt

From the Institute for Government’s Catherine Haddon

From the BBC’s Laura Kuenssberg

From the Evening Standard’s Joe Murphy

From PoliticsHome’s Kevin Schofield

Jacob Rees-Mogg, the Tory Brexiter, asks Bercow if he can confirm that the motion, as amended, would have to be put by a member of the government.

And he asks for a ruling on the meaning of the word “forthwith”. Erskine May (the Commons procedural Bible) says motions of the kind being debated today must be put to a vote “forthwith”. But Erskine May specifies “forthwith” in other circumstances. So does Bercow’s ruling affect those circumstances too.

Bercow says he will reflect on the second point. On the first point, if a motion has been moved, it must be put to a vote.

Hilary Benn, the Labour chair of the Brexit committee, says the House of Commons is now taking back control. That is to be welcomed, he says.

He says it is time to move on to the vote.

Bercow says he would like to move on, but he will treat colleagues with courtesy, and take a few more points of order.

Simon Hoare, a Conservative, says Bercow risks undermining the dignity of his post. He says we are in “choppy waters”.

Bercow says he is “deeply grateful”. (He is not concealing his sarcasm very successfully.) He says he will reflect on what Hoare said.

Leadsom rises again. Did the clerk say Bercow’s plan was acceptable? Or did he advise against it?

Bercow says the clerk offered him advice. They discussed it. When Bercow took his decision, the clerk offered further advice.

Andrea Leadsom, the leader of the Commons, asks Bercow whether the clerk of the Commons supported his decision. Will he publish the advice he received from the clerk?

There is loud cheering from Tory MPs for this.

Bercow says the advice he gets from the clerks is given to him in private.

But he says he also had a written note from the clerk, which he quoted from in his response to the first point of order.

Heidi Allen, a Conservative pro-European, says she is “hopping mad”. We are 79 days from Brexit, she says. She says MPs should be getting on with debating a plan B for Brexit.

The Labour MP Stephen Doughty says the government does not want the Commons to have a say on Brexit. He says members of the public watching cannot see Julian Smith, the chief whip, texting journalists. He criticises the government for tabling the business of the house motion very late yesterday.

Bercow says MPs can decide for themselves whether it was helpful for the motion to be tabled when it was.

Labour’s Alison McGovern asks Bercow whether he agrees that, if MPs disagree with the amendment, they can just vote against it.

Bercow says he agrees.

Ken Clarke, the Tory pro-European, says he is surprised MPs are against MPs being given a vote. He suggests some of his Brexiter colleagues should join the yellow jacket brigade outside the Commons.

Eddie Hughes, a Conservative, goes next with a point of order. He asks Bercow to cite the precedent for amendments being allowed to a business motion like the one on the order paper today (which MPs had assumed to be unamendable).

Bercow says he is not obliged to cite precedent.

But he is clear in his mind that the motion can be amended.

The business motion allows no debate. But it does not say no amendment is allowed, he says.

MPs are now dealing with points of order.

Peter Bone, the Tory Brexiter, says he was told by the clerks yesterday that he could not table an amendment to the business motion. But an amendment tabled by Dominic Grieve has been allowed.

John Bercow, the Speaker, says he does not know why Bone was told the motion could not be amended.

All I know is that in my understanding the motion is amendable. I’m clear in my mind about that.

Bercow says, if he had known Bone wanted to table an amendment, he would have supported that.

Julian Lewis, a Conservative, says May has told MPs on 74 occasions that the UK will leave the EU on 29 March. Can she categorically rule out delaying that?

May says she is happy to say what she has said before, which is that the UK will leave on that date.

Paul Scully, a Conservative, says more Londoners voted for Brexit than voted for Sadiq Khan as mayor.

May says Khan should back the Brexit deal.

Labour’s Rachael Maskell asks what May will do differently to ensure no homeless person dies in 2019.

May lists some of the measures taken by the government, and says it will put more money into mental health services.

Anne Main, a Conservative, says the government should help fund the RNLI. People assume it gets government funding.

May praises people who contribute to the RNLI, including the Sonning branch in her own constituency.

The SNP’s Pete Wishart says May’s Brexit deal is “as dead as the deadest dodo”. Will May “just go”?

May says Wishart does not support implementing the referendum. And he wants to take Scotland out of the UK, even though that is not what the Scottish people want.

Labour’s Clive Betts says councils overspent their children’s services budgets by £800m last year. That is because the number of children in care is at a record high. The money allocated by the Treasury is completely inadequate, he says.

May says an extra £410m was announced at the budget. Spending on services for children has increased by £1.5bn since 2010. She mentions various other measures introduced to help social services. And it is not just about money, she says. It is about how services are delivered.

Labour’s Stephen Kinnock asks whether May will give MPs a vote on “Common Market 2.0”, a new term for the Norway plus proposal he favours.

May says her plan will implement the results of the referendum.

Huw Merriman, a Conservative, says he offered to pay the charge a constituent who is an EU national would have to pay to get settled status because he thought the government would make it free. Shouldn’t it be free for all EU nationals?

May says the cost of getting settled status will be less than the cost of a passport. People with a valid permanent residency permit, or with leave to remain in the UK, will not have to pay, she says.

Corbyn says Chris Grayling is awarding millions of pounds to ferry companies with ferries that do not exist. May has achieved nothing in her renegotiation. If her deal is rejected next week, will May call a general election?

No, says May. She says she has put a good deal on the table. She says she does not know what Brexit plan Labour has. Corbyn has been for and against free movement, and for and against the UK negotiating trade deals. He wanted to trigger article 50, and now he wants to stop Brexit.

Corbyn says May is the first PM to lose a vote on the finance bill since the 1970s. Will May protect thousands of skilled jobs in the automotive industry and others and rule out no deal?

May makes a jibe about Corbyn recognising the leadership Yvette Cooper showed. She says her deal protects jobs. It is sensible for the government to spend money preparing for no deal, particularly given Labour’s stance.

Corbyn says he did not hear the words “legally binding” in May’s answer.

He says no one wants no deal – £4bn is being wasted on it. Will May listen to the view parliament expressed last night and rule out no deal.

May says Corbyn should back her deal. She says today Corbyn is criticising no-deal spending. But on Monday he said it was “too little, too late”. Which is it?

Corbyn says, if May’s deal is the only one available, why wasn’t it put to a vote in December. Will the changes May wants be changes to the withdrawal agreement?

May says she is looking at three things: assurances relating to the deal, and measures that can be taken domestically relating to parliament and Northern Ireland. She says she has put a good deal on the table. She is looking for clarifications.

Corbyn repeats his point. May says the only way to avoid no deal is to vote for her deal.

Tom Pursglove, a Conservative, asks if May will back a scheme intended to stop former servicemen who go to prison from reoffending.

May says the Care after Combat programme is a good one.

The SNP’s Drew Hendry says EU nationals in Scotland were treated to a “Christmas removal threat” from the Home Office. This feels less like a hostile environment, and more like a xenophobic one.

May says she recognises the huge contribution made by EU nationals. They can apply for settled status. The cost is less than the cost of a passport, she says.

Theresa May starts by paying tribute to Paddy Ashdown, who died last month. He served his country “with passion and distinction”, she says.

She condemns the threats made to the Tory MP Anna Soubry and to journalists outside the Houses of Parliament.

Nigel Dodds, the DUP leader at Westminster, has put out a lengthy statement rejecting the government’s “Stormont lock” offer. Here is an extract.

We recognise that the government has been working to bring forward measures to address our long-held concerns about the backstop issue.

As far back as December 2017 we have been insisting that we cannot have specific backstop arrangements being introduced over the head of the Northern Ireland assembly.

Undoubtedly there are some elements of the paper that could be improved and built upon but the paper published by the government is designed to give reassurances in the context that Northern Ireland will be subject to the backstop being operational. Indeed, paragraph 43 of the paper says, “This paper has focused particularly on the role that the NI institutions will play in any scenario in which the backstop would take effect”

We reject the backstop and have previously, and consistently, indicated we will not support an internationally legally binding withdrawal agreement that contains its provisions.

Such an international treaty supersedes and overrides any contrary domestic legal provisions.

The proposal to ensure “a strong role for the Northern Ireland assembly” before NI specific backstop provisions are given effect is cosmetic and meaningless in that as the paper itself indicates (paragraph 14) “this would be without prejudice to our commitment to abide by our international law obligations”. The assembly would not be able to override UK international legal obligations as the backstop provisions would be in the treaty.

The government’s assurances do not faithfully implement what was agreed and included in paragraph 50 of the joint report in December 2017. In that paragraph, the assembly was to decide whether specific arrangements were required. Consultation cannot replace the assembly determining these matters.

Martin Selmayr, secretary general to the European commission and a hate-figure for Brexiters (who believe that he has encouraged the EU to adopt a hostile stance towards the UK in the Brexit talks) has denied a report claiming he has said that Northern Ireland will be the price the UK must pay for Brexit.

Peter Foster, the Telegraph’s Europe editor, has written a useful Twitter thread on the “Stormont lock” plans. (See 11.46am.) It starts here.

Here is some snap reaction to the Bercow decision.

From the Telegraph’s Steven Swinford

From the Sky’s Kate McCann

From Nikki da Costa, who until recently was director of legislative affairs at Downing Street

From Jolyon Maugham, the QC who organised the bid to get the ECJ to rule that the UK can revoke article 50

Here is my colleague Heather Stewart on whether or not John Bercow, the speaker, will allow the Greive amendment intended to allow MPs to vote on ‘plan B’ within three days if the Brexit deal is defeated. (See 9.05am.)

And here is the Telegraph’s Steven Swinford on the same story.

Andrew Mitchell, the Conservative former chief whip, confirmed that he would vote against Theresa May’s Brexit deal this morning. He told the Today programme that it was “humiliating” and would “enshrine all those divisions which have caused such trouble in Britain. He went on:

It will perpetuate all the divisionism which has led us to where we are today.