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.
Johnny Mercer MP (@JohnnyMercerUK)
I actually voted the way this guy asked me to. The madness of BREXIT means he will figure this out at some point today and call me a ‘hero’. Who would be an MP example #562: pic.twitter.com/Y7SitdGBko
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.”
We’re doing something different … and we’d like to explain why. Our journalism now reaches record numbers around the world and more than a million people have supported our reporting. Unlike many news organisations, we haven’t put up a paywall – our journalism remains accessible to all, so more people have access to accurate information with integrity at its heart. This is The Guardian’s model for open, independent journalism.
Our model enables people to support us in a way that works for them. Readers’ support safeguards our essential editorial independence.
The chancellor, Philip Hammond, has defended his decision to obey the government whip and vote in favour of a no-deal last night despite his objection to such an outcome.
Speaking to Sky News he predicted that his cabinet colleagues who abstained on the vote would not be sacked.
Asked if no-deal has now been taken off the table as a result of the two votes last night, Hammond said:
“No deal on the 29 March is off the table. The problem with so called amendment A which Yvette Cooper moved last night, that the House of Commons collectively stamping its foot and saying ‘no no deal’ doesn’t actually answer the question how do we deliver this outcome because the default in our legislation is no deal. And the prime minister has always been abundantantly clear about this. The choices are, no deal, no Brexit or the deal. You can’t just say ‘we don’t want no deal’ without saying whether you are going to achieve that by having a deal or by having no Brexit.”
On cabinet members defying the three-line whip, he blamed “confusion”. Hammond said:
“A number of colleagues abstained on the final motion. We had a difficult situation. We were all expecting to have a free vote on the government’s motion where people could have expressed their view about leaving on 29 March. I would, of course, have voted for it, rejecting the idea of leaving on the 29 March with no deal. But because of the amendment that option was not presented to us. Some of us felt that we had to follow the logic of having already voting against amendment A, and carry that through and vote against it again. Others felt they couldn’t do that because they wanted to clearly show their support for the view that no deal is not a good outcome.”
“It was a very difficult and confused situation because people had been offered a free vote on the government’s motion and once the government’s motion became amended there was some confusion about what the position was.
I don’t expect there to be mass sackings as a result of last night.
I told the House of Commons that I would support the government’s motion, but I voted against amendment A because it is a unicorn, because it proposes something without delivering a means.
Asked about his calls suggesting a cross party approach for a softer Brexit, Hammond said:
That’s what some of my colleagues who voted against the prime minister’s deal need to think very carefully about. It is clear that the prime minister has to find a consensus around something and if isn’t the prime minister’s deal, I think it is likely to be something which is much less to the taste of those on the hard Brexit wing of my party.
On the prospect of the Speaker denying a third vote meaningful vote, Hammond said:
If there is clear evidence that there is a body of support growing for the prime minister’s deal, then the House of Commons will find a way to allow that support to be expressed. Quite a number of colleagues changed their minds on this issue between the January vote and the vote earlier this week. And talks continue and some of my colleagues will be thinking very hard about what the alternatives are now.
On the extension to article 50, Hammond said:
The European Union is signalling that only if we have a deal is it likely to be willing to grant a short technical extension to get the legislation through. If we don’t have a deal … then it is quite possible that the EU may insist on a significantly longer period. And again that will be point at which those of my colleagues who voted against the prime minister’s deal need to think very hard about how they want to proceed.
Sky News Politics (@SkyNewsPolitics)
.@adamboultonSKY asks: ‘How many more meaningful votes can we have?’ @PhilipHammondUK says if there is “clear evidence” of growing support for the PM’s #Brexit deal, the Commons will “find a way to allow that thought to be expressed”.
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.
Tom Peck (@tompeck)
A vague, and vain attempt to make sense of the great mad nights in British political history.
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.
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.
Kate Lyons (@MsKateLyons)
Today’s business in the House of Commons. Vote on extending Article 50 to be held at 5pm. pic.twitter.com/lswv6POg6Q
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.
Andrew Gwynne MP (@GwynneMP)
Before it all hits the fan on social media I want to explain that I won’t be in Parliament tonight to vote. I’m heading to Liverpool as my 7-week old grandson has been transferred from A&E in Manchester to ICU at Alder Hey Children’s Hospital. Please keep him in your thoughts x
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 [email protected] – and I’ll be holding the fort until my colleagues Matthew Weaver and Andrew Sparrow take over later on.
Kate Lyons (@MsKateLyons)
Helena Lee (@BBCHelenaLee)
Helena Lee (@BBCHelenaLee)
Helena Lee (@BBCHelenaLee)
Helena Lee (@BBCHelenaLee)
Helena Lee (@BBCHelenaLee)
Helena Lee (@BBCHelenaLee)
Helena Lee (@BBCHelenaLee)
Helena Lee (@BBCHelenaLee)
