Rolling coverage of the day’s political developments as they happen, including the publication of the government’s Brexit white paper
That’s all from me for today.
Thanks for the comments.
And Open Britain, which is campaigning for a “soft” Brexit, with Britain remaining in the single market (which Theresa May has ruled out) has sent out a briefing note identifying 16 problems with the white paper. Here is their list.
1 - There is still no meaningful parliamentary vote at the end of the article 50 process – amendments in committee stage are more important than ever.
2 - The government is aiming to cherry pick sectors within the single market and replicate existing arrangements, but this is a damaging approach our European partners will reject.
3 - Leaving the EU single market puts our access to key sectors at risk.
4 - The government have provided no detail on immigration policy, despite this driving our economic policy, and there is no mention of tens of thousands migration target.
5 - Migration policy is based on myths: the government must provide evidence to back up their claims.
6 - Pursuing a ‘comprehensive free trade agreement’ will not deliver the “exact same benefits” as being in the single market and customs union.
7 - The UK is leaving the customs union and will businesses will face increased costs as a result.
8 - Warm words on workers’ rights are not strong enough.
9 - UK will still make payments to the EU and there will be no £350m a week for the NHS.
10 - The government champions open trade but undermines its own strategy by relying on the false promise of new markets.
11 - There is no detail on transitional arrangements.
12 - Questions remain over a hard border between Northern Ireland and Ireland.
13 - Despite the prime minister’s overheated rhetoric, the white paper makes clear that the UK is and has always been a sovereign country while a member of the EU.
14 - Government is planning contingency over WTO scenario, raising questions over ‘no deal’ strategy
15 - Funding blackhole
The government only promises to honour funding for projects signed after the autumn statement 2016 “if they provide strong value for money and are in line with domestic strategic priorities”. This means billions of pounds in funding could be denied to beneficiaries from the following funds (which are not covered by HMG guarantees): the European Regional Development Fund; the European Social Fund; the Youth Employment Initiative; the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development; the European Maritime & Fisheries Fund; the European Regional Development Fund (CAP Pillar 2).
16 - Secondary legislation could lead to a power grab by ministers
The Lib Dems have sent out a briefing note identifying five “black holes” in the government’s Brexit white paper. This is what they say about them.
1 - Single market: The paper states it will aim to ensure the current “common frameworks” that enable UK businesses to trade freely with the EU will continue after Brexit. But the only way to do that is to adopt all new EU regulations as well as those which already exist, and to have a way of enforcing the rules on both sides on a continuing basis. That’s what the EU court of justice currently does. What, if anything, is going to replace the ECJ and how will this be reconciled with Theresa May’s vow to end the ECJ’s influence in the UK?
2 - Customs union: The paper calls for a new customs arrangement with the EU that allows the UK to sign trade deals with other countries while keeping trade between the UK and the EU as “frictionless” as possible. This is at odds with trade minister Lord Price telling the German newspaper Die Welt that “there will be no cherry-picking” on the customs union.
3 - Cooperation against crime: The paper fails to address how the UK will keep vital cooperation against crime, including the European arrest warrant and access to crime databases, which require accepting the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice. The paper also fails to confirm whether the UK will seek to remain part of Europol, the EU’s crime-fighting agency.
4 -Free movement and Erasmus: There is no mention in the paper of safeguarding the rights of Britons to live and travel on the continent post-Brexit. It also fails to make any mention of maintaining the Erasmus student exchange scheme that has benefitted over 200,000 UK students since it was set up.
5 - Northern Ireland border: The paper fails to address how the government will keep the soft border in place between Northern Ireland and Ireland after Brexit. No concrete solution is proposed, instead the government says it will aim to “minimise frictions and administrative burdens,” implying there could be a return to checks at the border.
And here is the SNP’s Europe spokesman, Stephen Gethins, on the Brexit white paper. He said:
The white paper underlines the ‘boorach’ at the heart of government - it is nothing more than a laminated copy of Theresa May’s Lancaster House speech that offers no detail on the key issues seven months on from the EU referendum.
By comparison, the SNP Scottish government published their paper on the EU referendum outlining how Scotland can retain its place in Europe before Christmas.
The white paper gives no guarantee on even devolved powers coming back to the Scottish parliament; it offers no clarity on the status of EU nationals; no clarity on seeking agreement with the joint ministerial committee and nothing on the ‘bad deal or no deal’ reset clause.
Here’s the statement that Sir Keir Starmer, the shadow Brexit secretary, has put out about the Brexit white paper.
Today’s white paper is indicative of the government’s whole approach to Brexit.
For months they have refused to publish a plan or allow proper scrutiny, and when they are finally forced to produce a White Paper it is rushed, limited and not well thought through.
The white paper offers no certainty for EU citizens living in the UK, no additional detail on how workers’ and consumer rights will be protected, and nothing on how full tariff-free access to the single market will be delivered.
It’s a wish list, not an action plan.
Labour has said throughout that there needs to be accountability and scrutiny throughout the Brexit process.
Next week we will debate amendments to the article 50 bill that would achieve that - in particular by guaranteeing a meaningful vote that ensures our parliament votes on the article 50 deal before the European parliament does. The government should welcome that, not reject it.
The Press Association has spoken to two political experts about John McDonnell’s argument that shadow cabinet ministers have to resign if they defy the whip but that this rule does not necessarily apply to other frontbenchers. (See 9.22am.)
This is from Prof Philip Cowley, of Queen Mary University of London, a specialist in parliamentary revolts.
It is fairly common to have a payroll vote where the payroll is whipped but backbenchers are allowed to vote as they like. I’m not aware of a ‘top-of-the-payroll vote’ before in which the line applies just to the cabinet but not to other people. Collective responsibility normally applies to everybody in the government or the shadow government ...
If whips and members of the shadow cabinet are allowed to rebel on a three-line whip, it becomes very difficult to instil any discipline down the line.
And this is from Akash Paun, a fellow at the Institute for Government.
It is certainly not something that I have come across before and it does strike me as odd. The opposition would normally seek to be as disciplined as the government. Having shadow cabinet members voting against each other on all sorts of issues is hardly a sign that you are ready to take over the government of the country.
The Daily Mirror’s Kevin Maguire has tweeted this about Diane Abbott and article 50.
Brexit flu convenient after Diane Abbott's Hackney North local Labour Party came within 2 votes of demanding she vote against Article 50!
— Kevin Maguire (@Kevin_Maguire) February 2, 2017
I posted the wrong link for Stephen Bush’s Diane Abbott profile at 3.26pm. I’ve put the right one there now, but you may need to refresh the page to get it to show up.
In his BBC News interview the Labour MP John Mann also said that the shadow ministers and whips who defied orders and voted against the article bill should not be allowed to remain on the front bench. They should resign, or be sacked, he argued.
Jeremy Corbyn had called this right. Labour MPs, particularly those who have accepted jobs from him, like Diane Abbott and others, if they are not prepared to vote the way that Jeremy has told them to vote, then they shouldn’t be on the front bench. That’s what leadership is about. That’s what party discipline is about.
If you want to oppose, as Jeremy did many times in 30 years, opposed Tony Blair and Gordon Brown and Labour policies in power ... do so, but don’t try and keep your front bench positions at the same time. So I do hope that Diane Abbott will reflect on that. You can’t have it both ways in politics. The voters don’t like it when politicians and parties try to have it both ways.
So I congratulate Jeremy Corbyn for enforcing a whip on Labour MPs. And now he should take action to show that he means business when he enforces a three-line whip.
Since it is open season on Diane Abbott today, it is worth recommending this recent profile of her by Stephen Bush for the New Statesman which presents the case for Abbott very well.
The Labour MP John Mann has accused Diane Abbott of “cowardice” and said she should apologise for missing the vote on the article 50 bill last night. In an interview with BBC News just now Mann made it clear that he did not accept her claim that she missed the vote because she was sick. She “bottled” the vote, he said.
It is quite extraordinary. We have some very, very ill people who have turned up to parliament to vote yesterday who are so sick they’ve not been able to carry on their work as MPs. made it there and they voted. She gave herself a sick note at 5 o’clock. I think we all know what is going on here. She bottled the vote. It’s cowardice.
People voted in different ways. One can argue whether they are right, they’re wrong. But you don’t abstain on the big votes. And it’s embarrassing to see that. She ought to be giving an apology to the Labour party for doing so. That is not leadership, that’s cowardice. She’s called it very, very badly ...
[Other MPs] the courage to vote the way they saw and thought was right, and can be accountable for that, for better or for worse. Hiding away from big votes is not the way we should be doing things. And she should have been in with me and Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell in voting the Labour line. She wasn’t, and that’s not very clever.
A spokeswoman for Abbott declined to comment on Mann’s allegations
Here is Rajeev Syal’s story from earlier about Abbott missing the vote.
When David Davis, the Brexit secretary, was taking questions in the Commons on the white paper he suggested that Britain would withdraw from the Prum convention, an anti-crime, data-sharing arrangement.
The Tory MP Anne-Marie Trevelyan asked if Davis would confirm that the UK would be “coming out of the Prum framework as it is now and building a new relationship for data-sharing to fight against crime and terrorism which ensures my constituents’ most personal data is no longer subject to the ECJ”.
Davis replied:
Almost by definition, because we are coming out of the union that will happen, but that’s not to say that we will not be making new arrangements.
The Prum framework for people is a data exchange, it covers things like DNA and so on.
We will be making new arrangements with very, very clear in our mind keeping terrorism, crime and so on under control.
But we will no doubt protect them from the ECJ.
Comments (…)
Sign in or create your Guardian account to join the discussion