Theresa May has come under further criticism from Welsh politicians over the claim, now retracted (see 10.25am and 12.39pm) that her party immediately accepted the result of the Welsh devolution referendum.
This is from Mark Drakeford, the Labour Welsh first minister.
One of the prime minister’s earliest actions as an MP was to vote against the formation of the national assembly.
Despite the majority vote in favour of Welsh devolution, the Conservative manifesto as late as 2005 committed the party to a second referendum on the matter.
The then-first minister Rhodri Morgan reacted to the closeness of the result by reaching out to those opposed to the creation of the national assembly and worked to establish its legitimacy in their eyes.
The success of that approach by Rhodri Morgan and Carwyn Jones was borne out in the emphatic majority to extend the National Assembly’s powers in 2011.
It’s hard to imagine a more different approach to that taken by Mrs May towards the EU referendum.
And this is from the Plaid Cymru leader at Wesminster, Liz Saville Roberts.
The prime minister’s Brexit desperation has led to her either having a selective memory, [to] deploy wilful hypocrisy or simply lie about the referendum on Welsh devolution.
The Conservative party campaigned against devolution and then promised a second referendum six years after it was established.
The prime minister herself voted against the legislation which created the national assembly for Wales, after the referendum.
Unlike the unicorns of the Brexit referendum, the 1997 devolution vote was a clear question, with a clear outcome and clear consequences. The only party to attack its legitimacy was her party - this is hypocrisy of the highest order.
Raab sets out leadership credentials in speech calling for asbos for anti-competitive businesses
Dan Sabbagh
Dominic Raab has just finished a speech that can only be described as a leadership pitch, a carefully prepared address at a Centre for Policy Studies event that will have done his credibility within the Tory party no harm.
The former Brexit secretary argued that Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell had “tapped a vein of public support in their accusations of crony capitalism and markets rigged by vested interests” and offered a prescription for free-market competition as an alternative.
The MP’s big idea was that there should be asbos for business: handing the Competition and Markets Authority a power to issue anti-competitive behaviour orders “against firms ripping off consumers, with large fines for breach”.
Raab is currently polling somewhere between third and fifth to become next Tory leader, according to ESRC and ConHome surveys. He may struggle to get ahead of Boris Johnson, but judging by the content of his speech, his real goal could be to become chancellor.
“That’s who the free market is there to serve; the student, the pensioner, the family buying foreign currency to go on a hard-earned holiday,” Raab added, framing his argument in a way intended to appeal to swing voters who he believes are at risk of falling into Labour hands.
Raab also confirmed that he would vote against May’s Brexit deal tomorrow, arguing that “the fundamental way we can get changes in the withdrawal agreement is to vote down the current bad terms” and then go back to the EU to renegotiate.
But Raab said there was no need to extend article 50, however, and argued that a no deal may be the only possible outcome. “If we can’t get a deal, we’d leave on WTO terms even if only transitionally,” he said.
And he even used a line once used by Theresa May, claiming that a no deal “won’t be a walk in the park, but it wouldn’t be the end of the world”.
Dominic Raab, the former Brexit secretary. Photograph: Will Oliver/EPA
Tom Watson, the Labour deputy leader, does not appear to have heard of Gareth Johnson, the latest Tory to join the rebellion against Theresa May’s deal. (See 1.23pm.)
It’s Google Monday. This time “Gareth Johnson MP”. So low key his Wikipedia entry seems normal.
@andrew has anyone yet proposed a People’s vote where Remain is not an option? Honours the referendum result and would give ‘losers consent’ to the type and hardness of exit. No deal would not be an option as it is an absence of an option.
Len McCluskey, the Unite general secretary and Jeremy Corbyn’s most powerful ally in the union movement, has proposed exactly this. But at the moment no one in parliament actively pushing this idea (even though there have been reports that No 10 has toyed with the idea.) The obvious problem is that the government would have to legislate for a May deal v no deal Brexit referendum, and there would be a strong chance of MPs or peers amending the bill as it went through parliament to include a remain option.
Tory whip Gareth Johnson resigns from government because he's opposed to May's Brexit deal
Gareth Johnson has resigned as a Conservative whip today because he cannot support Theresa May’s Brexit deal. He says the deal “prevents us taking back control and instead could leave us perpetually constrained by the European Union”.
My colleague Simon Jenkins thinks that MPs who say there is a better form of Brexit available than the one set out in Theresa May’s plan are lying. He explains why here.
DUP questions May's claim 'everyday life' in Northern Ireland would change under no-deal Brexit
In her speech Theresa May said this about a no-deal Brexit.
With no deal we would have: no implementation period, no security co-operation, no guarantees for UK citizens overseas, no certainty for businesses and workers here in Stoke and across the UK, and changes to everyday life in Northern Ireland that would put the future of our union at risk.
In his press statement, the DUP leader at Westminster, Nigel Dodds, said May should clarify what she meant. He explained:
The prime minister must explain this comment. What exactly would the government be changing? If this is nothing more than scaremongering, then the prime minister should cease from such foolish talk. Indeed, the Irish prime minister, Leo Varadkar, has said that the Republic of Ireland is not making preparations for a hard border even in the event of no deal being agreed.
An anti-Brexit sign on the road outside Newry, Northern Ireland. Photograph: Paul Faith/AFP/Getty Images
DUP says Tusk/Juncker letter has heightened its concerns about backstop
Nigel Dodds, the DUP leader at Wesminster, has put out a statement saying he thinks the Tusk/Juncker letter, far from reassuring his party about the backstop, has exacerbated their concerns. He said:
Despite a letter of supposed reassurance from the European Union, there are no “legally binding assurances” as the prime minister talked about in December. In fact, there is nothing new. Nothing has changed.
Rather than reassure us, the Tusk and Juncker letter bolsters our concerns by confirming:
1. everything the attorney general said in his legal advice regarding the backstop, still stands;
2. there has been no change to the withdrawal agreement and:
3. Northern Ireland would be subject to EU laws with no representation in Brussels. We would rely on the Dublin government to speak up for us.
Instead of meaningless letters, the prime minister should now ask for and deliver changes to the withdrawal agreement.
Nigel Dodds. Photograph: Paul Davey / Barcroft Images
Here are the main points from Theresa May’s Brexit speech and Q&A. The full text of the speech is here.
May refused to firmly rule out extending article 50. Asked about today’s Guardian report saying EU leaders now expect that article 50 will have to be extended until July, and whether she was willing to “categorically” rule that out, she replied:
Look, we’re leaving on 29 March. I’ve been clear that I don’t believe we should be extending article 50 and I don’t believe we should be having a second referendum.
(May could have said “I am clear that I don’t believe etc”, but instead of using the present tense, she used the present prefect, “I have been etc”. That might just be a tic, but sometimes it is a sign that a politician realises that a position they have adopted until now might soon have to change.)
She admitted that the assurances received from the EU today about the backstop will not go far enough for some MPS. She said:
I fully understand that the new legal and political assurances which are contained in the letters from Donald Tusk and Jean-Claude Juncker do not go as far as some MPs would like.
She admitted the EU had rejected her demand to set a fixed end date for the backstop. She said:
I also pursued in these discussions [with the EU, over Christmas] a proposal for a fixed date - with legal force - guaranteeing the point at which the future partnership would come into force. Because that is the way to bring an end to the backstop – by agreeing our new relationship.
The EU’s position was that - while they never want or expect the backstop to come into force - a legal time limit was not possible.
We have secured valuable new clarifications and assurances to put before the House of Commons, including on getting our future relationship in place rapidly, so that the backstop should never need to be used.
We now have a commitment from the EU that work on our new relationship can begin as soon as possible after the signing of the withdrawal agreement – in advance of the 29 March – and we have an explicit commitment that this new relationship does not need to replicate the backstop in any respect whatsoever.
We have agreement on a fast-track process to bring the free trade deal we will negotiate into force if there are any delays in member states ratifying it, making it even more likely that the backstop will never need to be used.
We now have absolute clarity on the explicit linkage between the withdrawal agreement and the political declaration, putting beyond doubt that these come as a package.
And finally the EU have confirmed their acceptance that the UK can unilaterally deliver on all the commitments made in our Northern Ireland paper last week, including a Stormont lock on new EU laws being added to the backstop, and a seat at the table for a restored Northern Ireland executive.
The legal standing of the significant conclusions of the December Council have been confirmed. If the backstop were ever triggered it would only be temporary and both sides would do all they could to bring it to an end as quickly as possible.
The letters published today have legal force and must be used to interpret the meaning of the withdrawal agreement, including in any future arbitration.
They make absolutely clear the backstop is not a threat or a trap.
May retracted her false claim that the result of the referendum on Welsh devolution was accepted by both main parties. (See 10.25am.) In extracts from the speech released overnight she said:
When the people of Wales voted by a margin of 0.3%, on a turnout of just over 50%, to endorse the creation of the Welsh assembly, that result was accepted by both sides and the popular legitimacy of that institution has never seriously been questioned.
After it was pointed out that the Conservative party did contest the result of the 1997 referendum, she instead said this morning:
When the people of Wales voted by a margin of 0.3%, on a turnout of just over 50%, to endorse the creation of the Welsh assembly, that result was accepted by parliament.
She said that, if MPs vote down her deal, she thought it was “more likely” that Brexit would be halted than that there would be a no-deal Brexit. She said:
While no deal remains a serious risk, having observed events at Westminster over the last seven days, it is now my judgment that the more likely outcome [if MPs reject her deal] is a paralysis in parliament that risks there being no Brexit.
She reiterated her opposition to the UK remaining in a customs union with the EU for good (which is one of Labour’s key demands). She said:
I have always been clear that we will not be in the customs union, because being in the customs union has with it other aspects which are not what people voted for.
She said she was committed to maintaining high standards on workers’ rights and environmental standards after Brexit.
I could not have been clearer that far from wanting to see a reduction in our standards in these areas, the UK will instead continue to be a world leader.
We have committed to addressing these concerns and will work with MPs from across the house on how best to implement them, looking at legislation where necessary to deliver the best possible results for workers across the UK.
Theresa May giving a speech on Brexit at the Portmeirion factory in Stoke-on-Trent. Photograph: POOL/Reuters
Comments (…)
Sign in or create your Guardian account to join the discussion