Soft Brexit could be result if May deal rejected again, says chief whip Julian Smith strikes pessimistic note as PM announces workers’ rights measures to boost support
The chief whip, Julian Smith, has warned cabinet ministers that, if MPs reject Theresa May’s deal a second time next week, parliament would take control and force a softer Brexit. As part of attempts to win over Brexit-supporting ministers, Smith struck a pessimistic note on Tuesday about the parliamentary arithmetic, the Guardian understands. He suggested the most likely outcome if the deal were rejected again would be that MPs opt to take a no-deal Brexit off the table and extend article 50. A softer Brexit would then emerge as the majority view in parliament, through a process of “indicative votes”.
The truth is out about Brexit – but there is a narrow road back to sanity
In yet another attempt to hold her fractured cabinet together, the prime minister has now offered “meaningful votes”: on her deal, on no deal, and on a short extension to article 50. None of these has moved her basic position one iota. All this means is that if she does not get her way we will be in exactly the same position as now, but with the cliff edge at the end of June instead of March. Even worse, the possibility for a longer extension, and the space that it would give for a new deal, will have been thrown away. For something to change, something has to give. The so-called Kyle-Wilson amendment – under which the May deal would pass the Commons, then be subject to a public vote – offers one of the very few ways forward immediately available. To see why, recall David Lammy’s exhortation to parliament in January that we must tell the truth even when others passionately disagree. The following are two deep truths about Brexit that swaths of MPs from all parts of the political spectrum continue to deny or ignore.
First, the Good Friday agreement of 1998 changed everything. Before that, the UK was free to repeal the 1972 European Communities Act, and to do whatever else it wished. After that agreement, the only Brexit that will not fatally undermine that delicately constructed peace in Northern Ireland has to be one that keeps us permanently aligned with the EU on both external tariffs and internal standards.
We’re divorcing the EU. So why do hard Brexiteers still feel jilted?
There is a jilted quality to the way some Tories talk about Brexit, which is odd, given that Britain is dumping the European Union. The resentment would make more sense if it were the other way round: if 27 member states had expelled Britain from their club. But after decades of treating everything European as a punishment inflicted on a nation against its will, the habit is hard to break. Even the act of leaving is configured by the Eurosceptic imagination as something done by them to us. There is an illustration in the resignation letter sent by George Eustice, an agriculture minister, to Theresa May last week. Eustice was appalled by the prospect of an article 50 extension, which would, he fretted, be “the final humiliation of our country”. He said the European commission had “not behaved honourably” and had “deliberately made progress slow and difficult”. Yes, George, it would all have been quick and easy without those meddling Brussels bureaucrats.
It doesn’t require a romantic attachment to the EU to find such Brexiter tantrums tedious. All it takes is an ability to imagine what the process looks like from the other side of the negotiating table. Immediately after the referendum, a big fear in Brussels was contagion. Zealous leavers had cultivated that idea. They cast Britain as the loose thread that, once pulled, would initiate a pan-European unravelling. No nation would be immune. EU leaders were then determined that the British experience should not invite imitation. And it doesn’t, mostly thanks to the luminous incompetence of Theresa May and her ministers. There are still plenty of eurosceptics elsewhere in Europe, but none looks across the Channel in admiration at a job well done.
If the US insists on chlorinated chicken, it can forget a trade deal
Backward US agriculture relies on antibiotics and hormones. Unless it meets British standards, it can join the back of the queue Britain urged to reject ‘backward’ US food safety standards Food fight: doubts grow over post-Brexit standards
The US published its negotiating priorities for any post-Brexit trade deal with the UK last week, and Woody Johnson, the US ambassador to Britain, invited us all to look again at US production methods and to drop our opposition to certain practices such as the use of hormones in beef and chlorine washes for chicken. Measured by import value, the UK market for food is the third largest in the world after China and Japan. Everyone seeks access to it, including the US. I believe in open markets and want us to have an independent trade policy. There is a negotiation to be had about allowing tariff-free quotas on some products as part of a future UK-US trade deal. However, if Americans want to be granted privileged access to the UK market, they will have to learn to abide by British law and British standards, or kiss goodbye to any trade deal and join the back of the queue.
The UK and the US have been on a different journey when it comes to food standards in recent decades. In the UK, we have built one of the most sophisticated and discerning markets for food anywhere in the world. Consumers have become more informed and show more interest in the provenance of their food and how it is produced. The British retail sector has contributed to building a strong brand around provenance and standards. Regulators have also made sure that we strive for the highest standards of animal welfare and food safety in the world.
The UK and the US have been on a different journey when it comes to food standards in recent decades. In the UK, we have built one of the most sophisticated and discerning markets for food anywhere in the world. Consumers have become more informed and show more interest in the provenance of their food and how it is produced. The British retail sector has contributed to building a strong brand around provenance and standards. Regulators have also made sure that we strive for the highest standards of animal welfare and food safety in the world. Agriculture in the US remains quite backward in many respects. It retains a position of resisting more information on labels to limit consumer knowledge and engagement. Its livestock sectors often suffer from poor husbandry which leads to more prevalence of disease and a greater reliance on antibiotics. Whereas we have a “farm to fork” approach to managing disease and contamination risk throughout the supply chain through good husbandry, the US is more inclined to simply treat contamination of its meat at the end with a chlorine or similar wash. However, the greatest difference between the British and US systems of farming is their attitudes to animal welfare. The UK has legally recognised the sentience of farm animals since 1875 when the first regulations were introduced to govern slaughterhouses. Since then we have introduced the Animals Act of 1911, tougher slaughterhouse regulations in 1933 and then a series of other improvements culminating in the 2006 Animal Welfare Act. We have some of the highest standards of animal welfare in the world and we have driven improvements in other European countries that have traditionally lagged behind. In the US, legislation on animal welfare is woefully deficient. There are some regulations governing slaughterhouses but they are not as comprehensive. As far as on-farm welfare legislation is concerned, there is virtually nothing at all at a federal level and only weak and patchy animal welfare regulations at a state level predominantly in the West Coast states. There is a general resistance to even acknowledging the existence of sentience in farm animals which is quite extraordinary.
Labour to order MPs to vote for amendment calling for second Brexit referendum, McDonnell announces Motion likely to be voted on when Theresa May puts her revised Brexit deal before the Commons next week
Labour will order its MPs to vote for a backbench motion that would trigger a fresh Brexit referendum, John McDonnell has said. The shadow chancellor said the party would back an amendment being tabled by Labour MPs Peter Kyle and Phil Wilson after it dramatically shifted its policy last week to support a fresh public poll.
The Labour leadership had asked for the original Kyle-Wilson amendment to be redrafted to allow the party's MPs to support another referendum without approving Theresa May’s Brexit deal. The initial text had pledged back for the prime minister's exit plan providing she put it to a public vote.
UK reaches 'basic agreement' on no-deal Brexit tariffs, tough choices rem
LONDON (Reuters) - Britain's government has reached a general agreement on import tariffs if it leaves the European Union without a deal, trade minister Liam Fox said on Wednesday, but the business minister warned that tough choices remained. Broadcaster Sky News reported on Tuesday that the government was planning to slash tariffs on 80-90 percent of goods if it left with no deal, which would benefit consumers but damage the competitiveness of many British factories and farms. Speaking to lawmakers on Wednesday, Fox said senior ministers had reached an outline agreement but that it was too soon to make details public. "It is always possible that there could be further changes, but there has been a basic agreement," he told a parliamentary committee. Fox added that no decision had been reached on whether parliament should be given any details of the tariffs before it has to vote again on Prime Minister Theresa May's preferred Brexit deal on March 12. Britain currently has tariff-free access to EU markets, and benefits from EU trade deals with other countries. But its exports will automatically face EU tariffs if it crashes out of the bloc on March 29 without transition arrangements. Businesses want to know if Britain, the world's fifth largest economy, will slap reciprocal tariffs on imports from the EU. If not, tariffs would have to be lifted on imported goods from most other countries under World Trade Organization rules. "There is a very difficult set of choices that have to be made if we were to leave without a deal," business minister Greg Clark told the BBC earlier on Wednesday. "Either you are making things more expensive that previously came in tariff-free from the EU, or, in some cases ... undermine the industry," Clark said, citing the need for tariffs on what he described as unfairly cheap Chinese ceramics exports. Unilaterally scrapping tariffs would also reduce Britain's leverage to encourage other countries to lower tariffs on British exports, he added. Ross Denton, a trade lawyer at law firm Baker McKenzie, said scrapping import tariffs would be "devastating" for British farmers. Warwick Business School professor Nigel Driffield said the plans looked rushed, with no detailed cost-benefit analysis.
CARS, COWS AND SHEEP TO BE PROTECTED? Sky News said senior ministers had privately agreed to scrap tariffs on almost all goods other than the most sensitive areas such as cars, beef, lamb and dairy products. Clark said lawmakers would only be told about proposed tariffs if a majority vote next week in favour of leaving the EU without a deal, though Fox said he would prefer to inform lawmakers before such a vote. "Work is continuing on developing and finalising those tariff schedules but they will be published ... once we knew that we were leaving without a deal on March 29," Clark said.
The government's priority is to ensure that on Tuesday lawmakers supported an amended version of a Brexit withdrawal plan which they overwhelmingly rejected on Jan. 15, he added. Sky said that Clark had lobbied colleagues in favour of tariffs on car imports to protect Britain's automotive industry, while environment and farming minister Michael Gove had made the case for agricultural tariffs. Brexit supporters like Fox view regaining the ability to set an independent trade policy as one of the main advantages of leaving the EU, arguing that Britain will have more success negotiating trade deals with other regions on its own.
I wonder how many big blinds our poker playing Brexiteers would put on us being better off financially through BREXIT. Have a feeling when they have to put their money where their mouths are it wouldnt be many.
I wonder how many big blinds our poker playing Brexiteers would put on us being better off financially through BREXIT. Have a feeling when they have to put their money where their mouths are it wouldnt be many.
I wonder how many big blinds our poker playing Brexiteers would put on us being better off financially through BREXIT. Have a feeling when they have to put their money where their mouths are it wouldnt be many.
Lisbon treaty far worse than brexit you lot keep bleating on about then we are all shafted Seeing how brussels is reacting just strengthens the resolve we should take our nukes and armies out of nato watch them panic
Lisbon treaty far worse than brexit you lot keep bleating on about then we are all shafted Seeing how brussels is reacting just strengthens the resolve we should take our nukes and armies out of nato watch them panic
Seeing those bolded words , still gives me nightmares . The document in it's entirety still languishing in my bookmarks ...a project fail !
When will Brexiteers stop talking about Lisbon Treaty 2022 or whenever, there is nothing in the lisbon treaty about 2020, 2022, losing veto or having too join the euro. IT IS FAKE NEWS and if you dont beleive me READ IT!!!!
And you can find it all over the place if you read real news
If it weren’t so avidly believed and shared, this absurdity could be ignored, but it’s typical Brexitology. Here are its claims: in 2020 all EU countries lose their veto. In 2022 all become states of the new federal nation and must join the euro. The London Stock Exchange will move to Frankfurt to an EU exchange and the EU parliament and court of justice become “supreme”. Borders are lost as Schengen becomes compulsory and countries lose control of planning and tax policies. The UK hands over its armed forces and nuclear deterrent to an EU force
There’s a lot more of this balderdash, with each claim meticulously debunked by Peers. No, nothing new is about to be enforced: there is no mention of 2020 or 2022 in the real treaty, as all was fixed in 2009. No, the word “federal” is not in there, except in Germany’s official name. No, the veto isn’t being lost, while the need for unanimous votes gets 100 mentions. Some claims sound vaguely plausible: true, we have no absolute control of our fisheries and never did, in or out of the EU. But no, the UK won’t lose the Falklands, Caymans and Gibraltar.
This new wave of fakery has been sparked by Brexiter fears that Britain may not leave after all – or that Labour’s (semi) support for a confirmatory referendum will mean another vote.
'Difficult' Brexit talks see no breakthrough, European Commission says
Brexit negotiations "have been difficult" and "no solution has been identified" to the Irish backstop, the European Commission has said. It comes after the latest talks between UK ministers and EU Brexit negotiator Michel Barnier in Brussels. Commission spokesman Margaritis Schinas said the talks had taken place in a "constructive atmosphere" but there had been no breakthrough.
Kezia Dugdale accuses Scottish Labour leader of censoring conference guide to remove support for 'people's vote'
Scottish Labour's leader personally ordered that criticism of Brexit and support for a second EU referendum be removed from the party's conference guide, his predecessor has said in an extraordinary "censorship" row. Kezia Dugdale wrote to Richard Leonard accusing him of doctoring a report by two Scottish Labour MEPs to remove a description of Brexit as a "tragedy for our country" and the workers the party represents. Ms Dugdale also alleged that a section stating that the MEPs "fully support" another EU vote was taken out "on your instruction", despite a second referendum supposedly being party policy. In an outspoken attack on her successor, the former Scottish Labour leader challenged him...
Jeremy Corbyn backtracks over putting daughter of adviser in charge of investigating anti-Semitism
Jeremy Corbyn was on Wednesday forced to make a hurried about-turn over the appointment of the daughter of a key adviser to handle complaints about anti-Semitism in the party. Laura Murray, the daughter of his close ally Andrew Murray - who is also chief of staff to Unite leader Len McCluskey - was announced as interim head of complaints, prompting an outcry and a hasty retreat. The news came ahead of a meeting of the Jewish Labour Movement to discuss whether to disaffiliate from the Labour party over the row. A final decision will be made at the body’s annual meeting on April 7. Labour MPs were appalled that the party’s leadership had apparently considered giving the job to Ms Murray given her...
Brexit deal 'will be defeated by 100 votes', Ministers believe, after talks in Brussels collapse
Theresa May’s Cabinet is resigned to her Brexit deal being defeated by up to 100 votes next week after talks in Brussels collapsed without progress on Wednesday. Downing Street is already making plans for a third “meaningful vote” on the deal on the assumption that Tuesday’s vote is lost, and Mrs May is considering making a major speech on Friday to plead for support from MPs. One minister said it appeared “certain” that the Commons vote on the Brexit deal will be lost, and that Mrs May’s next move would depend on the scale of the defeat. Meanwhile the Chief Whip, Julian Smith, has warned MPs their Easter break could be cancelled if Brexit is delayed, adding to the growing sense of inevitably...
Comments
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/03/06/brexit-latest-news-theresa-may-faces-commons-grilling-talks/
Julian Smith strikes pessimistic note as PM announces workers’ rights measures to boost support
The chief whip, Julian Smith, has warned cabinet ministers that, if MPs reject Theresa May’s deal a second time next week, parliament would take control and force a softer Brexit.
As part of attempts to win over Brexit-supporting ministers, Smith struck a pessimistic note on Tuesday about the parliamentary arithmetic, the Guardian understands.
He suggested the most likely outcome if the deal were rejected again would be that MPs opt to take a no-deal Brexit off the table and extend article 50. A softer Brexit would then emerge as the majority view in parliament, through a process of “indicative votes”.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/mar/05/soft-brexit-could-be-result-if-may-deal-rejected-again-says-chief-whip
In yet another attempt to hold her fractured cabinet together, the prime minister has now offered “meaningful votes”: on her deal, on no deal, and on a short extension to article 50. None of these has moved her basic position one iota. All this means is that if she does not get her way we will be in exactly the same position as now, but with the cliff edge at the end of June instead of March. Even worse, the possibility for a longer extension, and the space that it would give for a new deal, will have been thrown away.
For something to change, something has to give. The so-called Kyle-Wilson amendment – under which the May deal would pass the Commons, then be subject to a public vote – offers one of the very few ways forward immediately available. To see why, recall David Lammy’s exhortation to parliament in January that we must tell the truth even when others passionately disagree. The following are two deep truths about Brexit that swaths of MPs from all parts of the political spectrum continue to deny or ignore.
First, the Good Friday agreement of 1998 changed everything. Before that, the UK was free to repeal the 1972 European Communities Act, and to do whatever else it wished. After that agreement, the only Brexit that will not fatally undermine that delicately constructed peace in Northern Ireland has to be one that keeps us permanently aligned with the EU on both external tariffs and internal standards.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/mar/06/brexit-kyle-wilson-amendment
There is a jilted quality to the way some Tories talk about Brexit, which is odd, given that Britain is dumping the European Union. The resentment would make more sense if it were the other way round: if 27 member states had expelled Britain from their club. But after decades of treating everything European as a punishment inflicted on a nation against its will, the habit is hard to break. Even the act of leaving is configured by the Eurosceptic imagination as something done by them to us. There is an illustration in the resignation letter sent by George Eustice, an agriculture minister, to Theresa May last week. Eustice was appalled by the prospect of an article 50 extension, which would, he fretted, be “the final humiliation of our country”. He said the European commission had “not behaved honourably” and had “deliberately made progress slow and difficult”. Yes, George, it would all have been quick and easy without those meddling Brussels bureaucrats.
It doesn’t require a romantic attachment to the EU to find such Brexiter tantrums tedious. All it takes is an ability to imagine what the process looks like from the other side of the negotiating table.
Immediately after the referendum, a big fear in Brussels was contagion. Zealous leavers had cultivated that idea. They cast Britain as the loose thread that, once pulled, would initiate a pan-European unravelling. No nation would be immune. EU leaders were then determined that the British experience should not invite imitation. And it doesn’t, mostly thanks to the luminous incompetence of Theresa May and her ministers. There are still plenty of eurosceptics elsewhere in Europe, but none looks across the Channel in admiration at a job well done.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/mar/05/divorcing-eu-hard-brexiteersn-eurosceptics-brussels
Backward US agriculture relies on antibiotics and hormones. Unless it meets British standards, it can join the back of the queue
Britain urged to reject ‘backward’ US food safety standards
Food fight: doubts grow over post-Brexit standards
The US published its negotiating priorities for any post-Brexit trade deal with the UK last week, and Woody Johnson, the US ambassador to Britain, invited us all to look again at US production methods and to drop our opposition to certain practices such as the use of hormones in beef and chlorine washes for chicken.
Measured by import value, the UK market for food is the third largest in the world after China and Japan. Everyone seeks access to it, including the US. I believe in open markets and want us to have an independent trade policy. There is a negotiation to be had about allowing tariff-free quotas on some products as part of a future UK-US trade deal. However, if Americans want to be granted privileged access to the UK market, they will have to learn to abide by British law and British standards, or kiss goodbye to any trade deal and join the back of the queue.
The UK and the US have been on a different journey when it comes to food standards in recent decades. In the UK, we have built one of the most sophisticated and discerning markets for food anywhere in the world. Consumers have become more informed and show more interest in the provenance of their food and how it is produced. The British retail sector has contributed to building a strong brand around provenance and standards. Regulators have also made sure that we strive for the highest standards of animal welfare and food safety in the world.
The UK and the US have been on a different journey when it comes to food standards in recent decades. In the UK, we have built one of the most sophisticated and discerning markets for food anywhere in the world. Consumers have become more informed and show more interest in the provenance of their food and how it is produced. The British retail sector has contributed to building a strong brand around provenance and standards. Regulators have also made sure that we strive for the highest standards of animal welfare and food safety in the world.
Agriculture in the US remains quite backward in many respects. It retains a position of resisting more information on labels to limit consumer knowledge and engagement. Its livestock sectors often suffer from poor husbandry which leads to more prevalence of disease and a greater reliance on antibiotics. Whereas we have a “farm to fork” approach to managing disease and contamination risk throughout the supply chain through good husbandry, the US is more inclined to simply treat contamination of its meat at the end with a chlorine or similar wash.
However, the greatest difference between the British and US systems of farming is their attitudes to animal welfare. The UK has legally recognised the sentience of farm animals since 1875 when the first regulations were introduced to govern slaughterhouses. Since then we have introduced the Animals Act of 1911, tougher slaughterhouse regulations in 1933 and then a series of other improvements culminating in the 2006 Animal Welfare Act. We have some of the highest standards of animal welfare in the world and we have driven improvements in other European countries that have traditionally lagged behind.
In the US, legislation on animal welfare is woefully deficient. There are some regulations governing slaughterhouses but they are not as comprehensive. As far as on-farm welfare legislation is concerned, there is virtually nothing at all at a federal level and only weak and patchy animal welfare regulations at a state level predominantly in the West Coast states. There is a general resistance to even acknowledging the existence of sentience in farm animals which is quite extraordinary.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/mar/06/us-chlorinated-chicken-trade-deal-agriculture
Motion likely to be voted on when Theresa May puts her revised Brexit deal before the Commons next week
Labour will order its MPs to vote for a backbench motion that would trigger a fresh Brexit referendum, John McDonnell has said.
The shadow chancellor said the party would back an amendment being tabled by Labour MPs Peter Kyle and Phil Wilson after it dramatically shifted its policy last week to support a fresh public poll.
The Labour leadership had asked for the original Kyle-Wilson amendment to be redrafted to allow the party's MPs to support another referendum without approving Theresa May’s Brexit deal. The initial text had pledged back for the prime minister's exit plan providing she put it to a public vote.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-labour-second-referendum-whip-kyle-wilson-amendment-john-mcdonnell-a8808381.html
LONDON (Reuters) - Britain's government has reached a general agreement on import tariffs if it leaves the European Union without a deal, trade minister Liam Fox said on Wednesday, but the business minister warned that tough choices remained.
Broadcaster Sky News reported on Tuesday that the government was planning to slash tariffs on 80-90 percent of goods if it left with no deal, which would benefit consumers but damage the competitiveness of many British factories and farms.
Speaking to lawmakers on Wednesday, Fox said senior ministers had reached an outline agreement but that it was too soon to make details public. "It is always possible that there could be further changes, but there has been a basic agreement," he told a parliamentary committee.
Fox added that no decision had been reached on whether parliament should be given any details of the tariffs before it has to vote again on Prime Minister Theresa May's preferred Brexit deal on March 12.
Britain currently has tariff-free access to EU markets, and benefits from EU trade deals with other countries. But its exports will automatically face EU tariffs if it crashes out of the bloc on March 29 without transition arrangements.
Businesses want to know if Britain, the world's fifth largest economy, will slap reciprocal tariffs on imports from the EU. If not, tariffs would have to be lifted on imported goods from most other countries under World Trade Organization rules.
"There is a very difficult set of choices that have to be made if we were to leave without a deal," business minister Greg Clark told the BBC earlier on Wednesday.
"Either you are making things more expensive that previously came in tariff-free from the EU, or, in some cases ... undermine the industry," Clark said, citing the need for tariffs on what he described as unfairly cheap Chinese ceramics exports.
Unilaterally scrapping tariffs would also reduce Britain's leverage to encourage other countries to lower tariffs on British exports, he added.
Ross Denton, a trade lawyer at law firm Baker McKenzie, said scrapping import tariffs would be "devastating" for British farmers. Warwick Business School professor Nigel Driffield said the plans looked rushed, with no detailed cost-benefit analysis.
CARS, COWS AND SHEEP TO BE PROTECTED?
Sky News said senior ministers had privately agreed to scrap tariffs on almost all goods other than the most sensitive areas such as cars, beef, lamb and dairy products.
Clark said lawmakers would only be told about proposed tariffs if a majority vote next week in favour of leaving the EU without a deal, though Fox said he would prefer to inform lawmakers before such a vote.
"Work is continuing on developing and finalising those tariff schedules but they will be published ... once we knew that we were leaving without a deal on March 29," Clark said.
The government's priority is to ensure that on Tuesday lawmakers supported an amended version of a Brexit withdrawal plan which they overwhelmingly rejected on Jan. 15, he added.
Sky said that Clark had lobbied colleagues in favour of tariffs on car imports to protect Britain's automotive industry, while environment and farming minister Michael Gove had made the case for agricultural tariffs.
Brexit supporters like Fox view regaining the ability to set an independent trade policy as one of the main advantages of leaving the EU, arguing that Britain will have more success negotiating trade deals with other regions on its own.
https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/uk-set-tariff-plan-only-decides-leave-eu-073759206--business.html
Seeing how brussels is reacting just strengthens the resolve we should take our nukes and armies out of nato watch them panic
Lisbon treaty far worse than brexit you lot keep bleating on about then we are all shafted
Seeing how brussels is reacting just strengthens the resolve we should take our nukes and armies out of nato watch them panic
Seeing those bolded words , still gives me nightmares . The document in it's entirety still languishing in my bookmarks ...a project fail !
And you can find it all over the place if you read real news
If it weren’t so avidly believed and shared, this absurdity could be ignored, but it’s typical Brexitology. Here are its claims: in 2020 all EU countries lose their veto. In 2022 all become states of the new federal nation and must join the euro. The London Stock Exchange will move to Frankfurt to an EU exchange and the EU parliament and court of justice become “supreme”. Borders are lost as Schengen becomes compulsory and countries lose control of planning and tax policies. The UK hands over its armed forces and nuclear deterrent to an EU force
There’s a lot more of this balderdash, with each claim meticulously debunked by Peers. No, nothing new is about to be enforced: there is no mention of 2020 or 2022 in the real treaty, as all was fixed in 2009. No, the word “federal” is not in there, except in Germany’s official name. No, the veto isn’t being lost, while the need for unanimous votes gets 100 mentions. Some claims sound vaguely plausible: true, we have no absolute control of our fisheries and never did, in or out of the EU. But no, the UK won’t lose the Falklands, Caymans and Gibraltar.
This new wave of fakery has been sparked by Brexiter fears that Britain may not leave after all – or that Labour’s (semi) support for a confirmatory referendum will mean another vote.
Brexit negotiations "have been difficult" and "no solution has been identified" to the Irish backstop, the European Commission has said.
It comes after the latest talks between UK ministers and EU Brexit negotiator Michel Barnier in Brussels.
Commission spokesman Margaritis Schinas said the talks had taken place in a "constructive atmosphere" but there had been no breakthrough.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-47470382
Scottish Labour's leader personally ordered that criticism of Brexit and support for a second EU referendum be removed from the party's conference guide, his predecessor has said in an extraordinary "censorship" row.
Kezia Dugdale wrote to Richard Leonard accusing him of doctoring a report by two Scottish Labour MEPs to remove a description of Brexit as a "tragedy for our country" and the workers the party represents.
Ms Dugdale also alleged that a section stating that the MEPs "fully support" another EU vote was taken out "on your instruction", despite a second referendum supposedly being party policy.
In an outspoken attack on her successor, the former Scottish Labour leader challenged him...
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/03/06/kezia-dugdale-accuses-scottish-labour-leader-censoring-conference/
Jeremy Corbyn was on Wednesday forced to make a hurried about-turn over the appointment of the daughter of a key adviser to handle complaints about anti-Semitism in the party.
Laura Murray, the daughter of his close ally Andrew Murray - who is also chief of staff to Unite leader Len McCluskey - was announced as interim head of complaints, prompting an outcry and a hasty retreat.
The news came ahead of a meeting of the Jewish Labour Movement to discuss whether to disaffiliate from the Labour party over the row. A final decision will be made at the body’s annual meeting on April 7.
Labour MPs were appalled that the party’s leadership had apparently considered giving the job to Ms Murray given her...
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/03/06/jeremy-corbyn-backtracks-putting-daughter-adviser-charge-investigating/
Theresa May’s Cabinet is resigned to her Brexit deal being defeated by up to 100 votes next week after talks in Brussels collapsed without progress on Wednesday.
Downing Street is already making plans for a third “meaningful vote” on the deal on the assumption that Tuesday’s vote is lost, and Mrs May is considering making a major speech on Friday to plead for support from MPs.
One minister said it appeared “certain” that the Commons vote on the Brexit deal will be lost, and that Mrs May’s next move would depend on the scale of the defeat.
Meanwhile the Chief Whip, Julian Smith, has warned MPs their Easter break could be cancelled if Brexit is delayed, adding to the growing sense of inevitably...
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/03/06/brexit-deal-will-defeated-100-votes-ministers-believe-talks/