Brexit: More Labour resignations over second referendum vote – as it happened

The decision to suspend Steel was taken by the party in Scotland, Vince Cable has told the BBC’s Newsnight programme, adding that they acted “quickly, properly and in an orderly way”.

There was very serious concern about what he said, serious allegations, they have got to be investigated. I think the proper procedure which has been followed is that he is suspended while these investigations take place. We take it very seriously.

Asked by ITV News whether it was time for him to apologise to victims, Cable said:

No it isn’t. The investigation needs to precede, we will look at the consequences when they happen.

Naturally, if there is distress in the family, we are deeply concerned about it. We need to investigate what happened and establish the truth.

There’s a disciplinary process, we need to establish what happens. He is innocent until proven guilty but he is suspended and the action will follow up on that.

We have acted very, very quickly. It is a voluntary party, these are not people who are professionally employed in disciplinary investigations, we convened the group immediately the day after this allegation was made.

I think it has been dealt with very expeditiously and promptly.

The Press Association has produced this helpful timeline of the last three days in Parliament – for those of us who are feeling somewhat lost.

Tuesday

• MPs vote overwhelmingly to reject the prime minister’s Brexit deal for a second time, by 391 to 242.

Wednesday

• The Commons votes in favour of an amendment to a government motion which rejected the idea of the UK crashing out of the EU without a deal under any circumstances, by 312 votes to 308, although the vote is not legally binding.
• An amendment from the Malthouse compromise group of Conservatives that called for a “standstill” agreement lasting as late as the end of 2021, under which the UK would observe EU rules and pay into Brussels budgets, is heavily rejected by 374 votes to 164.
• Another amendment seeking to delay Brexit until 22 May is defeated by a majority of 210 MPs.
• MPs then support the amended government motion rejecting a no-deal Brexit by 321 votes to 278.

Thursday

• MPs reject an amendment seeking to extend Article 50 in order to hold a second Brexit referendum by 334 votes to 85.
• Another amendment tabled by the Labour MP, Hillary Benn, which sought to allow the House of Commons to hold indicative votes on what kind of Brexit deal should be negotiated, is narrowly defeated by MPs, by 314 votes to 312.
• A Labour amendment calling for a delay to Brexit to “provide parliamentary time for this House to find a majority for a different approach” is rejected by 318 votes to 302.
• A government motion seeking to extend the Brexit process is then passed by 413 votes to 202.

The attorney general, Geoffrey Cox, believes the UK could extricate itself from the backstop under the terms of the Vienna convention if it began to have a “socially destabilising effect on Northern Ireland”, according to the Daily Telegraph (£).

The paper is characterising the new legal advice it says has been issued by Cox as an attempt to win over those Brexiters who have so far been unable to support the prime minister’s deal – such as the ERG and the DUP. But it does not rate his chances of success, saying senior Brexiters have already dismissed the advice as “erroneous” and “badly misconceived”.

And tensions within the Tory party are boiling over, with the prime minister’s former policy chief – who resigned in 2017 – tweeting:

Lewell-Buck was the shadow minister for children and families, Madders was a shadow health minister and Fovargue was a shadow education minister.

The Irish premier, Leo Varadkar, has said London needs to tell the EU about what purpose an extension would serve and how long it would last.

Varadkar said he welcomed Westminster’s vote to extend Article 50 as it reduces the likelihood of a cliff edge, no-deal Brexit at the end of the month.

There seems to be two emerging options – ratification of the withdrawal agreement followed by a short extension into the summer, or a much longer extension that would give the UK time and space to decide what they want to do, including considering options that had been taken off the table like participation in the customs union and single market.

I think we need to be open to any request they make, listen attentively and be generous in our response. This matter will be now discussed further at next week’s European Council meeting and hopefully we will have more clarity from London in the meantime about their intentions.

Unanimity by the 27 will be required for any extension.

Guy Verhofstadt, the European Parliament’s Brexit coordinator, cast doubt on the EU Commission’s desire to allow an extension.

Cable has now released a statement on his impending departure:

I indicated last year that, once the Brexit story had moved on and we had fought this year’s crucial local elections in 9,000 seats across England, it would be time for me to make way for a new generation. I set considerable store by having an orderly, business-like, succession unlike the power struggles in the other parties.

So I wanted you, our members, to know that, assuming Parliament does not collapse into an early general election, I will ask the party to begin a leadership contest in May.

It has been my great privilege to lead the Liberal Democrats at this crucial time. I inherited the leadership after two difficult and disappointing general elections. But I take pride in seeing the party recovering strongly, with last year’s local election results the best in 15 years, record membership and a central role in the People’s Vote campaign.

Cable’s departure in May as leader will trigger a 12-week contest. He has said:

I wanted to set it out so that there’s an orderly process of succession and the next generation can come through rather than chaotic power struggles you’re seeing inside the Tory party and Labour party so I wanted us to do better than that.

In his interview with the Mail, he added:

I would obviously like to have presided over a spectacular recovery [of the Lib Dems], rather than a gradual recovery, but events were beyond my control.

The fact that the issue of no Brexit and peoples vote is still live, that Theresa May can’t get her Brexit deal through, that we’ve managed to scrub no deal is a tribute to the kind of campaigning that our party’s done.

I think it is a creditable performance, and I’m very happy to let someone else take it on.

However, he he would stay on as leader if a general election or a second referendum was called.

The Lib Dem leader, Vince Cable, has attacked Labour after the party failed to support the vote on another referendum.

Labour have predictably let down the cause of a people’s vote this evening. This was their first chance to stand up and be counted, but instead they sat on their hands. Brexit remains in chaos with the government having faced heavy defeats this week.

The Commons has agreed by a large majority that article 50 will have to be extended. With the hallowed exit date of 29 March more or less scrapped, it now seems inevitable that Brexit will be delayed or very possibly stopped. A people’s vote remains the only way to resolve what is fast becoming a national crisis.

The health secretary, Matt Hancock, who voted for the delay, has nevertheless told Channel 4 News it would be a “disaster” to have a long extension if the EU insisted on a Brexit delay of around two years.

I think people want to get on with this. There are now two options on the table: One is to deliver the prime minister’s deal, which just can be delivered by 29 March or a short technical extension afterwards. Or, the alternative to that is a long extension, which I don’t want to see.

The international development secretary, Penny Mordaunt, voted against the delay. But she said that, since parliament had agreed to request an extension, it must be a “swift one, with purpose”. She added:

We must deliver the result of the referendum, and hurry up about it.

The decision of the Brexit secretary, Steve Barclay, to also vote against the delay is getting some attention:

Business leaders have welcomed the vote on an extension to article 50 but urged MPs not to drop the ball because of extra time.

Edwin Morgan, the interim director of the Institute of Directors, said “few in business will be stepping forward to thank parliament for its efforts this week”, while the British Chambers of Commerce (BCC) said trade was still in the “danger zone” .

While there is widespread relief that a cliff-edge Brexit was now likely to be averted, businesses are desperate for an end to the continuing uncertainty. Adam Marshall, the BCC’s director general, added:

While most businesses will support an extension to article 50 to avert the prospect of a messy and disorderly exit on 29 March, with just two weeks to go this vote leaves firms with no real clarity on the future.

The Food and Drink Federation has warned of catastrophic consequences of a no deal Brexit. Its chief executive, Ian Wright, said:

As the focus moves away from a 29 March 2019 exit date towards a later date, we must not overlook that 29 March is still the date in the Withdrawal Act. It is critical that MPs now follow-through on their intentions with actions. The government must swiftly agree the length of delay with the EU and table a statutory instrument to change that date. Only then can the diversion of time, effort and money towards no-deal planning be halted.

And Morgan added:

We know a tiny, tiny amount more about the next steps than we did a couple of days ago, but the problem is that the clock is still ticking and no deal is still the default.

It may be folly to hope that parliament can agree on anything more than what it doesn’t want, but the Brexit process parted company with reason a long time ago, so what choice do business leaders have?

Here’s some political reaction to the evening’s action in the Commons:

The DUP leader, Arlene Foster, told Channel 4 News:

We are talking to the government and to the attorney general at the moment to try and make a deal happen because we want to see Brexit working, we want to see it working for the whole of the UK in a way that doesn’t leave Northern Ireland behind.

A brief note on the prime minister’s motion on delaying Brexit: The tellers announced it was passed by 412 votes to 202 but the division list records it as 413 to 202. We’re amending the blog to reflect that.

We’re getting the division list now and it appears that many in the government voted against the government’s preferred option – to delay Brexit.

It was, as noted, a free vote; so there would be no expectation any of the above might be compelled to resign.

Liz Truss, the chief secretary to the Treasury, has confirmed that she voted against the government motion. That does not count as a rebellion, because it was a free vote, but one can assume that Theresa May did not find it helpful.

According to Sky’s Beth Rigby, Liam Fox, the international trade secretary, Stephen Barclay, the Brexit secretary, and Gavin Williamson, the defence secretary, also voted against an article 50 extension.

That’s all from me for tonight.

My colleague Kevin Rawlinson is taking over now.

This is from Adam Price, leader of Plaid Cymru.

This is from Nick Boles, one of the Conservative MPs most heavily involved in backbench attempts to get MPs to rule out a no-deal Brexit.

After the final result was announced, Jeremy Corbyn rose on a point of order in the Commons to urge Theresa May to work for a consensus on Brexit. He said:

After the last few days of government chaos and some defeats, all of us now have the opportunity and the responsibility to work together to find a solution to the crisis facing this country, where the government has so dramatically failed to do so.

We have begun to hold meetings with members across the house to find a consensus and a compromise that meets the needs of our country.

But the last few days have also put a responsibility on the prime minister. First, to publicly accept that both her deal and no deal are simply no longer viable options. Secondly, to bring forward the necessary legislation to amend the exit date of 29 March.

Tonight I reiterate our conviction that a deal can be agreed based on our alternative plan that can command support across the house. And I also reiterate our support for a public vote not as political point-scoring but as a realistic option to break the deadlock.

There was no reply from Theresa May, or any other government minister.

In what does not rank among the biggest surprises of this week’s round of Brexit voting, Steve Baker, the former Brexit minister who is now the chief organiser of the European Research Group (ERG), says he voted against extending article 50:

The big question now is whether the EU will agree to a UK request for an extension. My colleague Jennifer Rankin has some answers:

How does it work?

Extending Brexit is a job for EU leaders, say numerous diplomatic sources. The EU’s 27 heads of state and government would have to decide unanimously at an EU summit on Thursday 21 March. But first the UK has to ask. The EU cannot consider the question until the British government makes a formal request to extend article 50.

Would the EU say yes?

Probably. While any single country has the right to block a Brexit extension, most diplomats think the EU would agree, although this cannot be taken for granted.

The wildcard is that EU leaders have never discussed the issue and often take a stricter line than officials. In December, for example, EU leaders decided it would be pointless granting the UK further legal assurances on the Irish backstop, concluding that another legal paper was unlikely to sway MPs in favour of a Brexit treaty. It turned out they were right. But blocking an extension could be seen as tantamount to forcing the UK to leave the EU without a deal. The EU does not want to go down in history with the blame for Brexit.

And the British request matters: the UK must be able to show “a credible justification for a possible extension and its duration”, a spokesman for the European council president, Donald Tusk, has said.

The Commons has now adjourned, after some criticism of Boris Johnson, the former foreign secretary, for his comments yesterday that money spent on non-recent child abuse investigations has been “spaffed up a wall”.

Have we had more ministerial rebellion this evening?

Sky News’ Kate McCann says Andrea Leadsom, the leader of the House of Commons, was possibly among those who voted against the government on extending article 50:

The motion passed means Theresa May will now ask the EU for an extension to article 50 until 30 June 2019 if her deal gets approved by next Wednesday. If they agree – as most assume they will – the UK will not be leaving the European Union on 29 March.

If May’s deal is not passed by next Wednesday, then the motion warns that a long extension of article 50 is likely to be required, which would require the UK to take part in the European elections.

The Labour MP Chris Bryant decides not to press his amendment, which would have ordered the government not to bring the PM’s Brexit deal back for a third vote (see 4.21pm for details) to a vote.

This is from the Labour peer Andrew Adonis, who is an arch-remainer.

The Labour MP Lloyd Russell-Moyle voted both for and against the Wollaston amendment. That is normally something MPs do if they want to actively register an abstention.

Otherwise, if MPs do not vote in a division, it is not clear whether they have abstained out of choice, whether they were paired, or whether they were unavailable for some other reason.

The Lucy Powell amendment to the Hilary Benn amendment has been rejected by 314 votes to 311 - a majority of three.

MPs are now voting on the Benn amendment. (See 5.26pm.)

But, given the result of the Powell vote, the Benn amendment may struggle to pass.

The Labour MP Wes Streeting and many of his colleagues in favour of a second referendum have written an open letter explaining why they are abstaining.

From the New Statesman’s Stephen Bush.

This is not the first time MPs have voted on a second referendum. There was a division during the committee stage of the EU withdrawal bill in December 2017. Labour abstained on that occasion, as they are doing now, and only 23 MPs voted in favour (including nine Labour MPs who defied the whip).

The Lib Dems are voting for the Wollaston amendment. The Lib Dem MP Layla Moran has just posted this picture of the empty aye lobby on Twitter.

This is the first time in recent months that MPs have voted on a second referendum.

But, with Labour following the People’s Vote advice and not backing the amendment, on the grounds that it is the wrong time for a vote on this issue, it is going to fail badly.

If the Wollaston amendment were to pass, then the Benn amendment and the Labour amendment would both fail, and that partly explains why Labour are abstaining.

According to Sky’s Faisal Islam, even Labour MPs who are keen on a second referendum are mostly abiding by the orders to abstain.

Barclay claims that Labour is trying to stop Brexit.

He says this is a time for responsibility. But Corbyn’s motion ducks responsibility, he says.

Stephen Barclay, the Brexit secretary, is winding up the debate now.

He is focusing mostly on Labour, claiming that Labour’s Brexit policy includes proposals that are mutually incompatible.

And he says it is inconsistent for Jeremy Corbyn to call for a cross-party approach when he refuses to meet Theresa May. As Labour MPs protest, he corrects himself, and says Corbyn has met May just once.

(May has said that she has been trying to schedule a follow-up meeting with Corbyn, but that Corbyn has been unwilling to agree a date.)

Blomfield says MPs should not accept the government’s argument that the UK would have to hold European elections for an article 50 extension to go beyond June. He says Lord Keen of Elie, the advocate general for Scotland, said so in the Lords recently. Bomfield quotes Keen, who told peers:

The noble Lord’s point that the EU Parliament could sit without the UK having had an election to the European Parliament is correct.

In the Commons the Brexit debate is coming to an end.

Winding up for Labour, the shadow Brexit minister, Paul Blomfield, criticises the government for trying to get MPs to back a deal already rejected by the Commons twice. He says Theresa May should adopt the approach set out in Labour’s motion, and find a parliamentary majority for a new approach.

And he says there should be a public vote on credible Brexit option. Labour would support such a vote, he says.

If you are a remainer (well, actually, if you are at all interested in Brexit), you might enjoy a Brexit: What Next for Remainers? Guardian Live event taking place at the Barbican in London on Tuesday next week. There are more details here.

Simon Coveney, the Irish deputy prime minister and foreign minister, has said the EU may offer the UK a 21-month article 50 extension. In an interview with RTE, he said a long extension was “likely to happen” if there was no agreement in the UK parliament on a deal.

If you have a long extension of say 21 months, to the end of 2020, or whatever the period would be, well then Britain has a legal entitlement to have representation in the European parliament.

Coveney said that Ireland would not object to an article 50 extension, but that other EU countries might need more convincing. He said:

Some of the European prime ministers will be quite demanding, I think. They are open to an extension of time but they want to know in what detail by providing that extension of time how they get certainty.

Theresa May chaired a political cabinet today. As is customary these days, it wasn’t long before some snippets emerged.

This is from the Times’ Francis Elliott.

And this is from the Telegraph’s Stephen Swinford.

Conservative Brexiters are to ask a group of lawyers to examine a new proposal to exit the backstop using article 62 of the Vienna convention. (See 9.48am, 1.47pm and 2.35pm.)

The ERG will ask lawyers including the QC Martin Howe, the only non-MP on their “star chamber” of lawyers, to examine how that could work as a unilateral exit mechanism

One source in the group sounded pessimistic that it could win broad support. “No UK government is ever going to break a treaty anyway,” the source said

Howe, a member of Lawyers for Britain, has been damning about the possibility and told the Standard that the use of the convention required a “radical change of circumstances”.

He said that the international court of justice had considered “the fall of the Soviet Union, disappearance of the Warsaw Pact and dissolution of Czechoslovakia, were not sufficient to satisfy this ground”.

The Labour MP Chris Bryant has tabled an amendment, that will be put to a vote, saying Theresa May should not be allowed to put her deal to MPs again because Commons rules say the house should not be asked to vote on the same proposition during a session. It says:

At end, add “ (4) notes that Erksine May states that a motion or an amendment which is the same, in substance, as a question which has been decided in the affirmative or negative during the current session may not be brought forward again during that session; and therefore orders the government not to move a further motion asking the house to approve the withdrawal agreement and framework for the future partnership that the house declined to approve on 15 January 2019 and 12 March 2019.”.

In a speech in the Commons a few minutes ago Bryant said this rule went back to the time of King John. It was introduced to stop him trying over and over again to get parliament to accept a proposal it had rejected. And it has been cited repeatedly over the years, he said, including to stop George Lansbury pressing for a repeat vote on women’s suffrage. Bryant said that Conservatives, who value tradition, should be in favour of enforcing this rule.

John Bercow, the Speaker, was asked in the Commons yesterday if this rule would stop him allowing MV3, the third meaningful vote on May’s plan. He replied:

There are historical precedents for the way in such matters are regarded. I do not need to treat of them now and no ruling is required now. There may be people who have an opinion about it. I am not really preoccupied with that, but a ruling would be made about that matter at the appropriate time, and I am grateful to [Angela Eagle] for reminding me that such a ruling might at some point in the future be required.

In her speech Yvette Cooper acknowledged that an article 50 extension lasting more than two or three months would clash with the European elections. But she said she did not accept the government’s argument that the UK would inevitably have to elect new MEPs if it wanted to stay in the EU into the summer.

She urged MPs to read a thread posted on Twitter by Eleanor Sharpston, an advocate general at the European court of justice. Sharpston showed that other alternatives were available, Cooper said.

The thread comes in two parts. The first one starts here.

And the second one here.

And here are three of her specific tweets.

The Labour MP Yvette Cooper is speaking in the Commons now. She is one of the main supporters of the Benn amendment calling for indicative votes and she says the government should have done this a long time ago. She acknowledges that David Lidington unveiled a plan for indicative votes in his speech, but she says this should not be dependent on there being a long article 50 extension and the UK taking part in the European elections.

In the Commons Sarah Wollaston, the former Tory who is now an Independent Group MP, acknowledges that her second referendum amendment may fail today. But if it does, they can bring it back, she says.

She says MPs in favour of the idea should vote for it today, because the Labour front bench may never get round to supporting it, she says.

But she also signals that she will bring it back and put it to a vote again next week.

In the Commons debate Ian Blackford, the SNP leader at Westminster, accused Labour of cowardice for refusing to back another referendum. He said:

A shiver has run down the front bench of the Labour party looking for a spine to run up and it has not found one.

And the Tory Brexiter Sir Christopher Chope said he would “seriously consider” the issue if Labour brought forward a motion of no confidence in the government.

The DUP leader, Arlene Foster, has signalled her party is ready to do a deal to end the Brexit impasse, saying that the prime minister must prove only that the constitutional integrity of the UK would be preserved, my colleague Jessica Elgot reports.

Best for Britain, the anti-Brexit campaign that favours a second referendum, has put out a statement saying that it does not want MPs to vote for that today. A spokesperson said:

Best for Britain, like a majority of the country, believe that giving the people the final say is the only credible solution to the Brexit mess we’ve been left in after three years of government failure and parliamentary gridlock.

We believe bringing this issue before parliament today will not truly test the will of the house for a public vote. The debate today must focus on the pressing need for an extension to article 50 to confirm parliament’s rejection of a no deal cliff-edge on 29 March and protect the country from a damaging disorderly exit.

We will continue to build on the strong support throughout the country for parliament to give the people the final say.

The People’s Vote campaign has been making exactly the same argument. (See 1.25pm.)

And here is John McDonnell, the shadow chancellor, explaining Labour’s decision to abstain on the Wollaston second referendum amendment later.

Turning back to article 62 of the Vienna convention, and the suggestion that it could allow the UK to escape the backstop (see 9.48am and 1.47pm), here are some tweets from Lorand Bartels, a reader in international law at Cambridge University, arguing - well, that this notion is rubbish.

Speaking from Washington DC, Arlene Foster, the DUP leader, has told the BBC that this stage of the Brexit process could be the moment for a deal. Commenting on reports that the DUP have been in talks with Geoffrey Cox, the attorney general, about revisions to the backstop legal advice (see 9.48am), she said:

It’s not about the attorney general changing his advice. It’s about finding the right deal. It’s about not leaving Northern Ireland behind when the rest of the UK is leaving.

Brexit is only two weeks away. When you come to the end of a negotiation, that’s when you really start to see the white’s of people’s eyes and you get to the point of a deal.

The Labour MP Lisa Nandy has written a new article for the Guardian explaining why she is opposed to a second referendum. Here is an extract.

It is playing with fire to suggest we can settle the defining question of our age, affecting every aspect of our lives, communities and the future of the planet, through a referendum that large numbers passionately believe is illegitimate. In May there will be elections to a new European parliament and if we choose to pursue a referendum Britain will have to take part. The last referendum was ugly and divisive with claims on both sides that were untrue. The debate has since worsened. Cries of traitor, which used to echo around far-right rallies, are routinely heard in Westminster. To re-elect MEPs to a parliament we promised to leave months earlier, while also seeking a referendum in terms that are not considered legitimate by many, is like walking into a room full of explosives with a lit match. We are breaking our democracy.

And here is the full article.

Labour’s Wes Streeting says there is “a considerable degree of discomfort” among Labour MPs who support a second referendum about the position of some on the Labour frontbench.

He asks if the party will give wholehearted support to the Kyle/Wilson plan for a confirmatory second referendum (ie, backing a Brexit deal, subject to it being put to a public vote) if it comes to a vote. “Yes,” says Starmer.

Challenged about Labour’s failure to support the second referendum amendment, Starmer says:

It is obvious that we are supportive of the principle. It’s a question of timing.

Labour sources are confirming that its MPs will be whipped to abstain on the Wollaston second referendum amendment – which is what Starmer effectively said in the Commons a few moments ago, although he did not put it in those terms.

Here is the Plaid Cyrmu MP Jonathan Edwards on Labour not backing the Wollaston second referendum amendment.

Labour’s Ben Bradshaw says many Labour MPs will be tempted to vote for the Wollaston second referendum. He says, although Starmer is in favour, other senior people in the party give out different messages on this topic.

Starmer says he has always tried to speak with a clear voice on this.

This is from the Labour MP Helen Hayes, justifying a Labour decision not to vote for a second referendum amendment today.

Sir Keir Starmer, the shadow Brexit secretary, is responding now for Labour

He says a simple motion calling for an extension to article 50, to allow more time for MPs to agree a Brexit solution, would pass by a hefty majority.

But he says the government has included in its motion a suggestion MPs should back Theresa May’s deal again. That makes it divisive, he says.

The SNP’s Joanna Cherry intervenes, and asks Starmer what he thinks about suggestions that Geoffrey Cox, the attorney general, may argue that article 62 of the Vienna convention could be used to argue that the UK could not be trapped in the backstop. (See 9.48am.)

Starmer says the idea that the government could use the “nuclear option” of “crashing the treaty” came to him as a surprise. He says he would be surprised if Cox were to argue this. He says breaking a treaty has consequences in international law. The UK could be taken to court, he says.

Lidington is now talking about the Labour amendment.

It says the government should extend article 50 “to provide parliamentary time for this house to find a majority for a different approach”.

Lidington says this is unnecessary. He says MPs have already debated Labour’s Brexit approach, and rejected it.

And this is from the Telegraph’s Stephen Swinford, on government whipping.

This is from my colleague Jessica Elgot.

Back in the Commons Lidington is now talking about the Hilary Benn amendment.

He says it is undemocratic, because it allows a day to be set aside for debate on a non-government motion provided it is backed by at least 25 MPs, including MPs from five different parties. (This is the motion that Benn intends to be used to create the mechanism for an “indicative votes” process.)

Lidington says this effectively gives the minor parties in the Commons a veto, because their support would be needed for the motion to be allowed. He says a much larger number of MPs from a single party could back an alternative motion, but it would not be allowed under the Benn procedure.

You can read the text of the Benn amendment on this document (pdf).

This is from my colleague Jessica Elgot.

If Labour does abstain on the Wollaston second referendum amendment, that may provoke a backlash amongst some second referendum supporters because after Labour’s Brexit plan was voted down two weeks ago, the party said it was ready to “support or table an amendment in favour of a public vote”.

But I say “some second referendum supporters” because leading figures in the People’s Vote campaign think that now is not the time for a parliamentary decision on a second referendum. (See 12.57am.)

The Brexit department has published a short, two-page note setting out the thinking behind the government’s motion today. It is here (pdf).

Lidington says, if the UK wants to delay Brexit beyond the European elections (which take place at the end of May), the UK would have to take part in those elections.

The Tory pro-European Antoinette Sandbach asks if he has looked at the legal view suggesting the UK could follow the Croatian example. Croatia found an alternative to holding elections.

But that was when it was joining the EU, Lidington says.

Alastair Campbell, Tony Blair’s former communications chief and a leading supporter of the People’s Vote campaign, says it is wrong for Sarah Wollaston to push her second referendum amendment today.

Lidington is now explaining the government motion. (See 12.41pm.)

He says, if MPs do not pass a Brexit deal by the time of the EU summit starting next week, the government will let MPs find an alternative way forward in the following two weeks.

But he says this would be on the assumption that the EU would grant a longer article 50 extension, which would require the UK to take part in the European elections.

• Lidington says, if the government needs to go for a longer article 50 extension, it will allow MPs to find an alternative way forward. He is implying the government would use an “indicative votes” process.

The DUP MP Ian Paisley asks about Michael Gove’s claim yesterday that a no-deal Brexit could lead to the return of direct rule.

Lidington says he did not hear what Gove said yesterday, but he says Gove can answer questions on this.

David Lidington, the Cabinet Office minister and Theresa May’s de facto deputy, is opening the debate for the government.

Labour’s Ian Murray asks if the government will bring “meaningful vote three” to the Commons before 20 March.

Lidington says he will explain the motion in due course.

The Labour MP Caroline Flint uses a point of order to say she is pleased Bercow has selected the Wollaston amendment for a second referendum. She says it is the first chance that MPs will get to vote against the idea.

The Tory Brexiter Mark Francois used a point of order to complain about Bercow’s failure to call the Lee Rowley amendment ruling out a second referendum. It has been signed by more than 100 MPs.

Bercow will not go into detail about why he did not select it, but he says sometimes MPs are disappointed by his selection of amendments.

The pro-European Tory Ken Clarke told Sky News that the government should ask the EU for a long delay to article 50, so that it can rethink Brexit. He said:

I think we should suggest to the Europeans a good, long delay. Go back to square one and work out ... over a proper time, the final relationship.

Here is a Commons document (pdf) with the full list of amendments to the main Brexit motion - including those not on the order paper because they were submitted late.

Labour will not be backing a second referendum amendment tonight, John McDonnell, the shadow chancellor, has told ITV.

We don’t know yet which amendments are being called - we will find out what the debate starts, in the next few minutes - but at least four of the amendments do propose a second referendum.

The Labour MP Chris Bryant has tabled a manuscript amendment to today’s motion that would stop Theresa May putting her deal to a vote again, the Mirror’s Dan Bloom reports.

This is from the Spectator’s James Forsyth.

MV3 is the third meaningful vote - Theresa May’s next attempt to get MPs to back her deal.

In a column in this week’s Spectator, Forsyth says there is speculation that May could give her MPs a free vote on MV3.

Another theory doing the rounds among cabinet ministers is that May could make the next meaningful vote a free vote. It might seem bizarre to suggest that the way for the Prime Minister to win approval for her deal is to relax the whip. But advocates of this approach argue that the government doesn’t have much to lose: pretty much every Tory MP who wants to rebel already has. A free vote, however, would feel less partisan. This might encourage more opposition MPs to vote for the agreement. Tory whips suspect there are about 70 Labour MPs who don’t want a second referendum, and who might be joined by another 30 prepared to vote for May’s deal if they thought it might break the impasse. This is, essentially, what Ted Heath did in 1971. He offered a free vote for Conservative MPs on entry into the European Economic Community to make it easier for Labour MPs (such as Roy Jenkins) to back the government.

There must have been something about Brexit on Fox News this morning, because Donald Trump has decided to tweet a message that seems intended to cheer Brexiters.

We’ve had a fairly long and largely unilluminating lobby briefing with Theresa May’s spokesman ahead of the latest Brexit debate. We have learned that May herself will not speak in today’s debate – her voice is still bad – and it will be opened by her de facto deputy, David Lidington. The closing address will be from Stephen Barclay, the Brexit secretary. He will also make the usual point of order after the vote to announce the next steps. There is also a political cabinet taking place at Downing Street at 1.30pm, we were told. No official news on whether there will be a new meaningful vote on Monday or Tuesday next week – although that seems inevitable.

Here are some of the names on the Hilary Benn manuscript amendment. (See 10.53am.)

Mark Francois, the Tory Brexiter and vice chair of the European Research Group, told the BBC’s Victoria Derbyshire show earlier that it was hard to see how Theresa May was really in power given that some cabinet ministers defied a three-line whip last night and refused to vote against the motion ruling out a no-deal Brexit for good. He said:

If you do not have collective responsibility, ministers are supposed to support each other work together as a government. This is how our constitution works. Under our constitution, if a minister cannot support the policy of the government, they have to resign, which is what Sarah Newton honourably did.

Collective responsibility fell off its horse and died [last night]. It’s not the fault of the whips’ office. They are not giving the orders. You may as well dissolve the whips’ office and send them all off for a two-year holiday ...

When you have ministers who openly defy the prime minister, who openly defy a three-line whip, and nothing happens to them, you have to ask yourself, ‘Are you really in power?’ Indeed, ‘Are you really in office?’

Francois also said this:

I have seen better run parish councils than what I saw in the House of Commons last night.

... which is horribly unfair on parish councils.

In the Commons, during the business statement a few minutes ago, the Tory Brexiter Sir Edward Leigh asked for a debate on the possibility that the UK could use article 62 of the Vienna convention to exit the backstop. (See 9.48am.) Andrea Leadsom, the leader of the Commons, said Geoffrey Cox, the attorney general, had already considered this matter. But then she added, cryptically: “I’m sure if he has more to say on this matter, he will come to the house to say it.”

This is from Guy Verhofstadt, the European parliament’s lead Brexit spokesman. He is opposed to a long article 50 extension of the kind proposed by Donald Tusk. (See 9.11am.)

He made the same argument at greater length in a speech in the European parliament yesterday.

One problem for the Verhofstadt is that decisions to extend article 50 are taken by the European council, which is chaired by Tusk, not the European parliament.

Another problem, as my colleague Daniel Boffey reports, is that MEPs are divided on this point.

ITV’s Paul Brand has details of the new Hilary Benn amendment to the Brexit motion being debated later. It would set aside next Wednesday for a debate on “indicative votes” on Brexit alternatives.

This is from Labour whips, an official account.

Andrea Leadsom, the leader of the Commons, is announcing the Commons business for next week.

She has not timetabled a Brexit debate next week - even though the government motion being debated later sets Wednesday as the deadline for Theresa May’s deal to be passed.

These are from the Telegraph’s Steven Swinford.

Nicola Sturgeon, Scotland’s first minister, says Theresa May should agree to a long article 50 extension, as Donald Tusk is proposing (see 9.11am), and develop an alternative approach to Brexit.

Nigel Evans, a Tory Brexiter, said this morning that Theresa May needs to reassert her authority after some cabinet ministers defied a three-line whip and refused to vote against the motion last night ruling out a no-deal Brexit for good. He said:

[May’s] authority was openly defied by cabinet ministers and other ministers. She needs to reassert her authority. We have to have collective responsibility in government, otherwise it just simply doesn’t work.

Apparently cabinet ministers were confused last night as to whether they were on a three-line whip or not. Well, funnily enough, I received a text that told me on my phone that I was on a three-line whip. They received the same text. It’s amazing that you can be a cabinet minister and still not know what a three-line whip text means.

You can read today’s order paper here (pdf). The government motion being debated today, and the amendments tabled overnight (eight of them) are all there, starting on page 6.

Helpfully, my colleague Peter Walker has written a summary of what all the amendments say. It is here.

But the speaker, John Bercow, has also said he will consider manuscript amendments (last minute ones submitted on the day, hence not printed on the order paper) because the government motion went down late. (Amendments cannot be tabled until the motion has gone down.) As the Mirror’s Pippa Crerar reports, there may be one from Labour’s Hilary Benn.

Bercow will announce which amendments are being put to a vote at the start of the debate, after 11.10am.

Stephen Hammond, a health minister who abstained on the no-deal vote, claimed ministers were given assurances that they would not be sacked if they defied the government whip in this way.

“I personally had not been [given assurances] I believe some colleagues may have been,” he told the Today programme.

He said he could name the ministers involved.

Hammond added:

Yesterday was a day of many contradictions. Initially there were two amendments both against government policy. One was a free vote, one was whipped against. I voted against it in the hope that I could vote for the prime minister’s motion last night to make sure there was a smooth and orderly Brexit and there would not be a no-deal on 29 March.

Conservative MP Johnny Mercer tweeted a screengrab of some abuse he’d received over the latest Commons vote.

The shadow chancellor, John McDonnell, has urged MPs on all sides to seek a Brexit compromise.

Speaking to Sky News he said:

The problem with the prime minister’s approach is that she hasn’t come to parliament and sought a compromise. She came to parliament and basically said ‘my deal or no deal’ and she’s threaten parliament. And MPs on all political parties said ‘we’re not having that’. Yesterday Philip Hammond said he would oppose a no-deal and he was interested in compromise, then he disappeared, he never voted against no-deal. What we are saying to Philip Hammond is ‘you and other MPs in your party are looking for a compromise join us now in working through that compromise’.”

On the prospects for a second referendum, McDonnell said:

I think what will happen is exactly Labour party conference decided. First of all we have got to prevent a reckless deal that the Conservatives are bringing forward [and] make sure we prevent a no-deal. We want a general election if we can’t get that, we have said we will bring our own deal forward and then if necessary, once parliament has agreed deal, if some MPs we will only vote for this if it goes back to the people, that will have to be the case.

Asked about what kind of compromise Labour was seeking, McDonnell said:

Jeremy Corbyn has already met those [Conservative] MPs who are looking at the Norway model. Our own proposals are most probably the bedrock of a compromise that can be achieved because they got quite a warm response from Brussels. Let’s try and get a compromise. There may now be a willingness in parliament that there wasn’t before.

Andrew Bridgen, one of the members of the ERG who has twice oted against Theresa May’s deal, appears in no mood to change his mind in a third meaningful vote.

Speaking on the Today programme he accused May of adopting a “scorched earth policy” by trying to take out every option apart from her withdrawal agreement. He described the deal as a Hotel California Brexit from which the UK could never leave the EU.

And he accused the Commons of frustrating the will of the British people and added: “I can’t see this parliament staggering on”.

My colleagues Heather Stewart and Rajeev Syal have this devastating assessment of May’s cabinet in chaos yesterday, which, as the Guardian reports on its front page, “ruptured three ways... in an unprecedented night of Tory splits.” It begins:

Throughout yet another neuralgic day of Brexit debate at Westminster, the deep divisions in the Conservative party were again on excruciating display.

Collective responsibility has long been suspended, as shifting groups of ministers and backbenchers pursue their own favoured Brexit outcome. But the chaotic votes of Wednesday night smacked of a government falling apart.

First, six cabinet ministers most notable for their leadership ambitions – Gavin Williamson, Jeremy Hunt, Alun Cairns, Andrea Leadsom, Penny Mordaunt and Sajid Javid – supported the Malthouse compromise, a policy that would involve junking the deal their own government had spent two years negotiating.

And then a separate group of cabinet ministers, David Mundell, Greg Clark, Amber Rudd and David Gauke, abstained in the face of a three-line whip, rather than vote against the amended motion taking no deal off the table.

‘The best turd we’ve got’ - and other attempts to explain Brexit

This is from last night, but worth re-visiting, because we all need a chuckle in this absolute dumpster fire of a week.

There have been some remarkable turns of phrase from commentators and politicians in their attempts to capture just what exactly has gone on in British politics in the last few days.

The most quotable quote from an MP on Brexit in a while (forever?) came from Conservative backbencher Steve Double who said in parliament on Tuesday:

This is a turd of a deal, which has now been taken away and polished, and is now a polished turd. But it might be the best turd that we’ve got.

This is also pretty good from Tom Peck at the Indy, who says:

The House of Commons was a Benny Hill chase on acid, running through a Salvador Dali painting in a spaceship on its way to infinity.

It has got us wondering about the best Brexit analogies, or attempts to explain Brexit that have come out over the months/years. Any favourites? Let me know in the comments or on Twitter.

This one springs to mind:

More great questions pouring in, thanks so much everyone for getting in touch. One question from a reader is very easy to answer, he asks when the vote will be held tonight and whether the country is in for “another dose of indigestion at 7pm”.

Ken, you’ll be relieved to hear that tonight’s vote will be held at 5pm, so you’ve only got 10 more hours of indigestion and anxiety to wait through.

My colleague, Jennifer Rankin, has this excellent Q&A that explains how an extension to article 50 would work. There’s much more to it, you can read the full thing here, but here are some highlights:

How would an extension work?

Extending Brexit is a job for EU leaders, say numerous diplomatic sources. The EU’s 27 heads of state and government would have to decide unanimously at an EU summit on Thursday 21 March. But first the UK has to ask. The EU cannot consider the question until the British government makes a formal request to extend article 50.

Would the EU say yes?

Probably. While any single country has the right to block a Brexit extension, most diplomats think the EU would agree, although this cannot be taken for granted.

The wildcard is that EU leaders have never discussed the issue and often take a stricter line than officials. In December, for example, EU leaders decided it would be pointless granting the UK further legal assurances on the Irish backstop, concluding that another legal paper was unlikely to sway MPs in favour of a Brexit treaty. It turned out they were right. But blocking an extension could be seen as tantamount to forcing the UK to leave the EU without a deal. The EU does not want to go down in history with the blame for Brexit.

And the British request matters: the UK must be able to show “a credible justification for a possible extension and its duration”, a spokesman for the European council president, Donald Tusk, has said.

What is a ‘credible justification’?

That’s not entirely clear. The European parliament’s Brexit co-ordinator, Guy Verhofstadt, has said he opposes “any extension of article 50, even just for 24 hours, if it is not based on a clear majority from the House of Commons in favour of something”. Some EU sources say “credible justification” means time to hold a general election or a referendum. Others have no fixed view, and member states don’t want to be boxed in with strict criteria.

How long?

A short “technical” extension of two to three months to allow parliament to pass Brexit legislation would have been easy to agree if MPs had voted for the Brexit withdrawal agreement.

Now the deal has gone down in flames, the EU faces a dilemma. A short extension is seen as heightening the chances of the UK tumbling out of the EU just before European elections. But a long extension means the EU could be bogged down in Brexit for months or years, while numerous foreign and economic policy problems are jostling for attention.

Various options have been mooted, from three to 21 months, but there is no fixed view.

Some very touching responses have come in overnight from MPs (and members of the public) wishing well to Andrew Gwynne, Labour MP for Denton and Reddish, who tweeted that he would not be able to attend last night’s vote because his seven-week-old grandson was being transferred to ICU.

Other MPs, including Jess Phillips, Stella Creasy, Hilary Benn, Liz Kendall, Anna Turley, Albert Owen, Lisa Nandy, Caroline Flint, and many more, tweeted their support for Gwynne, wishing his family well and saying they understood and supported his decision to be with his family rather than to be at parliament.

A questions has come in from a reader – thanks so much and do get in touch if you have a thought or question for the blog, I can’t promise I’ll know the answer, but I promise to read your comments! – asking the following:

Can you explain the likelihood of the EU agreeing an extension in the short (June) or longer term?

The former seems palatable to the EU the latter does not. Therefore if we are in a position where we have no deal agreed and the EU reject a longer extension. What then?

Great question. Last night Michel Barnier, the EU’s chief Brexit negotiator, said he hopes the UK will eventually agree on a constructive proposal, but the EU needs an answer now.

He says the UK has to explain why an extension should be granted. He says the EU cannot grant an extension until it gets an answer.

They have to tell us what it is they want for their future relationship.

What will their choice be, what will be the line they will take? That is the question we need a clear answer to now. That is the question that has to be answered before a decision on a possible further extension.

Why would we extend these discussions? The discussion on article 50 is done and dusted. We have the withdrawal agreement. It is there.

That is the question asked and we are waiting for an answer to that.

• Barnier says the EU cannot grant an article 50 extension until it knows why the UK wants one.

‘Chaos reigns’ - How the papers covered Wednesday’s no-deal votes

“Humiliation” and “meltdown” are two words that are repeated across many of the front pages after another bruising day for Theresa May, in which key cabinet members defied the party whip and the prime minister suffered further defeats.

Good morning and welcome to Politics live. This is Kate Lyons kicking things off as politicians return to the Commons for yet another day of voting on yet more Brexit motions.

Last night, we saw dramatic scenes in the House. Theresa May issued her MPs with an ultimatum; back her deal, or face a long delay to Brexit. But her authority within her party is vanishing. Last night’s events were a total and humiliating shambles for the Conservative parliamentary party and the prime minister, as May was openly defied by ministers who abstained rather than follow the party whip. The result of last night’s votes, however, means the threat of a no-deal Brexit on 29 March has almost certainly been removed.

As many commentators have pointed out, this is virtually unprecedented; normally, open defiance from cabinet ministers like we saw last night, would lead to them being strongly disciplined, and repeated losses in significant votes would see the PM step down.

Today, the vote is about extending Article 50. Parliament will vote on a motion that sets next Wednesday as the deadline for MPs to pass a Brexit deal. It says, if a deal is passed by then, the government will seek an extension of article 50 until 30 June. But if the deal is not passed by then, then the government will need a longer extension, requiring the UK to take part in European elections.

It’s been a huge and exhausting week of Brexit news. Stay turned as we endeavour to keep you updated, and make sense of this craziness. Once again, I’ll be kicking things off and would love to hear from you - contact me in the comments, on Twitter, or via email kate.lyons@theguardian.com - and I’ll be holding the fort until my colleagues Matthew Weaver and Andrew Sparrow take over later on.

All set? Let’s dive in.