Bercow suggests he will not allow another Brexit deal vote unless EU agrees further changes – as it happened

We’re going to close down this live blog now. Thanks for reading and for all of your comments. Here’s a summary of the day’s events:

• The Commons Speaker, John Bercow, has said the government cannot bring the meaningful vote back to parliament again unless there has been substantial change to the Brexit deal. Number 10 did not immediately set out how it planned to proceed, saying his statement requires “proper consideration”.
• Bercow suggested the government could get round the problem by starting a new session of parliament. But he said it would be an unusual move and was not aware of whether or not ministers had such plans.
• Nicola Sturgeon complained to Theresa May about suggestions the prime minister will allow the Democratic Unionist party a seat in any Brexit trade talks. For months, May has refused to give Scotland a direct role.
• More than 20 Tory MPs said they would not back Theresa May’s deal just to avoid Brexit being cancelled. The ERG leader, Jacob Rees-Mogg, said he would do so. But many of his Brexiter colleagues disagreed.

If you’d like to read more, my colleagues Jessica Elgot, Rowena Mason and Daniel Boffey have the full story:

A government source has told the Press Association that it seems clear the Speaker’s motive today was to rule out a meaningful vote this week, which “also stands in the way of securing a shorter extension”.

Leads you to believe what he really wants is a longer extension, where Parliament will take over the process and force a softer form of Brexit. But anyone who thinks that this makes no-deal more likely is mistaken – the Speaker wouldn’t have done it if it did.

British businesses will be able to trade freely with Iceland and Norway if the UK leaves the European Union, the international trade secretary has announced.

Liam Fox called the agreement with the two countries, which is subject to final checks before it is expected to be signed next week, a “major milestone”. He said it will replicate the existing European Economic Area agreement (EEA) as far as possible.

We have just reached agreement with Iceland and Norway to ensure continued access for British businesses to the European Economic Area should we leave the EU without a deal.

This is one of the largest trade agreements we are party to as a result of our membership of the EU.

Combined with the agreement we have already signed with Liechtenstein and Switzerland, it accounts for close to half of the trade we’re seeking continuity for.

This is good news for British businesses and a major milestone in getting the UK ready for Brexit, no matter the terms of our withdrawal.

I expect to formally sign this agreement shortly and others to follow soon after.

My colleagues, Daniel Boffey and Jennifer Rankin, report that the EU is set to offer Theresa May a helping hand after her plan for a new meaningful vote was derailed, by formally agreeing on a new delayed Brexit date at this week’s summit and keeping it on offer until shortly before midnight on 29 March.

Here are some more details on the comments from Justine Greening, who has said that the Brexit secretary, Stephen Barclay, should not be negotiating an extension to article 50 because he voted against the idea last week. She told the Commons:

I question the appropriateness of the role of the DexEU secretary in this step of negotiating an extension.

We had a free vote in this house last week and I respect that. I also respect the way he chose to cast that vote, that was absolutely within his right. However, he chose to vote to leave come what may on 29 March. I take a different view to him, the house takes a different view to him.

It is simply not appropriate or credible for him to be the lead person negotiating on this country’s behalf with the European Union.

Sir Stephen Laws, who was formerly responsible for drafting parliamentary legislation, has said the Speaker of the Commons, John Bercow, would be guilty of frustrating the will of the house if he blocked a third meaningful vote when there was a majority for the deal.

Laws, now a senior research fellow at the Policy Exchange thinktank, has said:

The Speaker is right that the ‘same question’ rule is well precedented and would need consideration in this case. But it would be quite wrong to apply the ‘same question’ rule to disallow a third meaningful vote on the government’s Brexit deal. He has not yet finally decided that it will.

Since the deal was last put before the House of Commons, there have been two significant votes: on preventing a no-deal Brexit; and on extending article 50. The deal may look broadly the same but those two votes have produced fundamentally different circumstances

In addition, there has been time for a more considered look at the legal effects and implications of the documents produced overnight on 11 March. The ability of the government to put the matter back to the house should not depend on the order in which the questions were put last week or the haste in which decisions were made. Indeed, the vote for a delay of the article 50 deadline resulted in a resolution that specifically provided for a third vote, and so implicitly gave the house’s permission to have one. The Speaker should respect that.

If there is a majority for the deal, preventing the vote would be to frustrate the will of the house. It would be deeply concerning to see a Speaker act in such a way. Those who are opposed to the deal should want to win with a majority on the substance, not by procedural manoeuvring or on a technicality, and the Speaker should allow that.

He warned Bercow that his “reputation for impartiality has already become questionable” and that it was “difficult to see how it could survive the application of the same question rule to a third vote on the deal when the same rule was not applied to prevent Dominic Grieve’s amendments”.

Laws speculated that the government could work around the problem by putting down a new motion insisting on a vote on the deal “notwithstanding the practice of the house”.

18 Mar 201914.20 EDT

Andrew Sparrow

The Labour MP Chris Bryant gave a good, short speech on the “no repeat votes” rule in the Commons Brexit debate last week. Here is an extract.

My amendment is the embodiment of a very old principle of this house. When James I became King in 1603 - do not worry, I am not going to do every year – he summoned parliament, and that parliament became so fed up with MPs constantly bringing back issues on which it had already decided that the house expressly decided on 4 April 1604: “That a question being once made, and carried in the affirmative or negative, cannot be questioned again, but must stand as a judgement of the house.”

That has been our rule.

This ruling has been repeated many, many times. On 30 June 1864, Sir John Pakington wanted to give more money to nursery schools – hoorah! On 17 May 1870, Mr Torrens wanted to relieve poverty by enabling the poor to emigrate to the colonies. On 9 May 1882, Henry Labouchère wanted to allow MPs to declare, rather than swear, an oath so as to take their seats. On 27 January 1891, Mr Leng wanted to limit railway workers’ very long hours. On 21 May 1912 – this one would probably have the support of every member – George Lansbury wanted to allow women to vote.

On every single occasion, the Speaker—Speaker Brand, Speaker Peel, Speaker Denison and Speaker Lowther – said, “No, you can’t, because we’ve already decided that in this session of parliament.”

That’s all from me for tonight.

My colleague Kevin Rawlinson is now taking over.

From ITV’s Daniel Hewitt

Matthew Pennycook, the shadow Brexit minister, asks Kwarteng what length of article 50 extension the government will request, and what reason for it will the government give?

And he asks if MPs will get a vote on the article 50 extension agreement.

Kwarteng says, if the government passes the meaningful vote, it will ask for a short extension. But if it does not get the vote through, it will request a long extension.

Greening asks what the government will do to ensure there is no no-deal Brexit.

And she says it is not appropriate for Stephen Barclay to be involved in negotiating Brexit, given that he voted against extending article 50 last week.

Kwarteng says he also voted against extending article 50. But it was a free vote for Tories, he says.

We are now on the urgent question about Brexit.

Justine Greening, the Tory pro-European, asks for a statement about the article 50 extension procedure.

Kwasi Kwarteng, the Brexit minister, says the government will seek to negotiate an article 50 extension.

He says, although article 50 does not say how a country should seek an article 50 extension, Theresa May will write to Donald Tusk, the European council president, with a request.

It is expected the European council will discuss this at the summit later this week.

If it agrees an extension, a statutory instrument will be laid next week. It will have to be passed by MPs and by peers, he says.

This is from my colleague Jessica Elgot.

My colleague Rafael Behr has written a good column on John Bercow’s ruling. Here is an extract.

The relevant procedural scriptures seem pretty clear on the matter, so the Speaker is well within his rights to interpret them as he has done. But it is still a matter of interpretation and so unavoidably a heavily political action. It blasts the prime minister’s plans for the week off course. It transforms the calculations that MPs make about what should happen next. It also retrospectively casts a darker, more terminal shadow over the decision a majority of them made to reject the deal last Tuesday. Might some Tories or members of the DUP have acted differently had they known it was May’s last shot at getting her deal through?

Certainly the prime minister’s strategy has depended on eliminating options, so that eventually MPs would conclude that the only feasible Brexit on the table was hers. For that to work, she needed to keep bluffing and keep raising the stakes. She didn’t realise that ultimately, in parliament, it’s the Speaker who runs the game. And now all bets are off.

And here is the full article.

Brexit never loses the capacity to surprise. When it was suggested last week that John Bercow could end up blocking a third Commons vote on Theresa May’s Brexit deal, many MPs and observers (including me) were sceptical that it might come to this, not least because the then clerk of the Commons, Sir David Natzler, told MPs last year that he did not think the “no repeat votes” rule would apply in this case. But we probably should have learnt by now that it is always an error to underestimate Bercow’s capacity to surprise.

Here is a summary of what has just happened, and what it means.

• Bercow has said the government cannot bring the meaningful vote back to parliament again unless there has been substantial change to the Brexit deal. He made the announcement in a surprise statement to MPs, giving Downing Street no advance warning. (See 4.17pm.) Crucially, in response to an question from Labour’s Hilary Benn, Bercow also suggested that the EU would have to change what it has agreed with the UK for a further vote to be allowed. (See 4.08pm.) He said a change would have to be “not different in terms of wording, but different in terms of substance”. But he also stressed that he would consider any proposition on its merits, and that what he was saying today did not mark his final word on the matter.

• Bercow’s ruling must make the prospect of a another vote on the deal this week - meaningful vote three, or MV3 - even slimmer than it already was. (Even before Bercow stood up, there were reports saying that MV3 was almost certain to be delayed - see 3.33pm.) One possibility is that Theresa May will go to the EU summit asking for a long article 50 extension, and that she will return to the Commons next week to give MPs one final chance to pass her deal (ie, MV3), before holding a vote on the long Brexit deal. Bercow’s ruling also makes this option much more problematic, because an MV3 next week would still be much the same as the MV2 last week - although perhaps, if it were tied to a short article 50 extension, you could argue that that was a new proposition.

• Robert Buckland, the solicitor general, has said the UK is in a constitutional crisis. (See 5.02pm.) He has also said parliament might have to prorogue - ie, wrap up the current session of parliament, hold a mini recess, and then return for a new session. (The rule about “no repeat votes” only applies during a single parliamentary session.) However, this would create two significant problems. First, it would take time. Proroguing parliament would take a few days, at best. And, second, any bill currently going through parliament would be lost unless subject to the carry-over procedure.

• Bercow also suggested that his ruling could prevent some of the amendments already considered during Brexit debates, such as the one suggesting MPs take control of the parliamentary timetable, could be disallowed if brought back. (See 4.42pm.)

• Bercow managed to unite Brexiter and opposition MPs, who both welcomed his ruling. For example, this is from the Tory MP Owen Paterson.

And this is from the Lib Dem MP Ed Davey.

But the government is furious. These are from the justice minister Rory Stewart.

This is from Robert Buckland, the solicitor general, on Bercow saying he might not allow a repeat vote on the Brexit deal. Buckland told BBC News:

We are in a major constitutional crisis here.

There are ways around this - a prorogation of parliament and a new session. We are talking about hours to March 29. Frankly we could have done without this.

Now we have this ruling to deal with, it is clearly going to require a lot of very fast but very deep thought in the hours ahead.

18 Mar 201912.52 EDT

Sturgeon accuses May of giving 'disproportionate influence' to DUP in Brexit process

Severin Carrell

Nicola Sturgeon has written an open letter to Theresa May to complain about suggestions she will allow the Democratic Unionist party a seat in any Brexit trade talks, after refusing for months to give Scotland a direct role.

The first minister said giving the DUP a role in trade talks would breach the prime minister’s promises there would no different treatment and powers for different parts of the UK after Brexit. May made that offer in part to assuage DUP fears the Northern Ireland backstop would result in Northern Ireland having different treatment than the rest of the UK.

But Sturgeon said May was breaching her own pledges: if the DUP were allowed influence policies in its favour at the cost of other parts of the UK, that clearly breached that protocol, Sturgeon said.

It would be a “serious curtailment” of the Scottish parliament’s powers over EU policy areas such as farming and fishing if the Scottish government had no power to influence post-Brexit trade policy but Northern Ireland did have that power, through a sweetheart deal with the DUP.

The first minister said:

By according the DUP disproportionate influence, it seems clear that maintaining your majority in the UK parliament comes before respect for the properly constituted governments across the UK.

[There] must be no question of one political party – the DUP – being represented in talks on the future trade relationship between the UK and EU when other political parties and devolved governments are not.

View image in fullscreen

In his final response to a point of order, Bercow stressed that what he said earlier was not his final word on the matter. He would have to make any specific ruling at the time, he suggested.

Alex Burghart, a Conservative, asks if the house can suspend the standing orders preventing a motiong being brought back for a repeat vote.

Bercow says the house is the custodian of its own standing orders, and so the answer is yes.

• Bercow says MPs could vote to change the Commons rule preventing repeat votes on the same motion.