Brexit legislation ‘paused’ after MPs reject Boris Johnson’s timetable – as it happened | Politics

Closing summary

If, as expected, Brexit is delayed until the end of January, a general election would have to follow, the Press Association reports, citing an unnamed No 10 source.

Parliament and Corbyn have repeatedly voted for delay. On Saturday, parliament asked for a delay until January and, today, parliament blew its last chance. If parliament’s delay is agreed by Brussels, then the only way the country can move on is with an election. This parliament is broken.

The public will have to choose whether they want to get Brexit done with Boris or whether they want to spend 2020 having two referendums on Brexit and Scotland with Corbyn.

The prime minister did not use his opportunity at the dispatch box following his Commons defeat to refer to such a plan, preferring only to confirm he was pausing the passage of his bill, and the comments above are not attributable to an official No 10 spokesperson.

But the language deployed closely follows that used by Johnson when he made a similar warning to MPs earlier today.

LBC’s political editor has this take:

The shadow Brexit secretary, Sir Keir Starmer, has said:

Johnson is the author of his own misfortune. He only tried to bounce his deal through parliament because he knows it will not withstand scrutiny. A Brexit deal driven by the ideology of deregulation must be stopped.

The European council president, Donald Tusk, has said he will recommend the EU accept the UK’s request for a Brexit extension.

As we reported earlier, it is thought the EU will favour a delay until 31 January 2020:

Donald Tusk has tweeted to say he will recommend accepting the UK’s request for a Brexit extension:

The Tories are trying to sell this evening’s votes as a victory for the prime minister on the substance – and a refusal by Labour to then let him make the progress he wants to:

Labour, on the other hand, are calling it a victory for those who simply don’t want to allow the deal to be rammed through parliament without proper scrutiny:

And, as has become traditional on such nights, the European parliament’s Brexit coordinator, Guy Verhofstadt, has his own unique take:

Labour MPs who voted for the government’s Brexit deal at second reading this evening have called for more time to discuss it at committee stage. Gareth Snell has said:

The injury inflicted this evening was a mere flesh wound, and if the Leader of the House was willing to bring forward a motion tomorrow with a more considered timetable for committee stage, it would pass this House.

Some of us voted for second reading precisely so we could get on to the next stage for more scrutiny, and didn’t support the programme motion because we did not believe there was sufficient time.

His fellow Labour MP, Ruth Smeeth, said:

All we’re asking for is the opportunity to ensure that the deal which was only presented to us last night works for our constituents and my local economy – we need slightly more time.

Speaking in the Commons, Lucy Powell told the Leader of the House:

We could have a lot longer on committee stage and he could bring forward tomorrow morning a fresh programme motion which allows us longer in committee for us to actually put amendments in a timely fashion.

Jacob Rees-Mogg replied:

I am not unsympathetic to the point about time, it is simply the deadline of 31 October which was set by the European Union and, therefore, we are compressed in the time available to get this bill delivered, which is why I was willing to support the programme motion and felt that it was reasonable under the circumstances.

Confronted with a similar claim from the government benches earlier in the evening, some MPs have pointed out that, despite the tight deadline, the prime minister sought to prorogue parliament.

Much has been made of the significance of the prime minister’s decision to “pause” his bill, rather than pull it altogether – as well as that of his decision not to explicitly refer to 31 October when telling the Commons the UK will still leave the EU under the terms of his deal.

The leader of the Commons, Jacob Rees-Mogg, has now said it is “very hard to see how it is possible” for the withdrawal agreement bill to pass by that date. The Conservative MP and ardent Brexiter, Peter Bone, asked:

Leader of the House, can we interpret from what you are saying that it is now impossible to get the deal through this House and the other House prior to 31 October, and in that case it is effectively dead for approval before that date.

Rees-Mogg replied:

Impossible is a very strong word, but it is very hard to see how it is possible.

And here’s a little more from the lobby on what, exactly, happened this evening and what, exactly, it means:

The Times’ political correspondent has another take:

We’re getting some reaction now from senior EU27 figures. The Irish taoiseach, Leo Varadkar, said:

It’s welcome that the House of Commons voted by a clear majority in favour of legislation needed to enact withdrawal agreement. We will now await further developments from London and Brussels about next steps; including timetable for the legislation and the need for an extension.

Then there’s this from the European commission spokeswoman, Mina Andreeva:

Sky News’ Europe correspondent reports that the EU is ready to offer a delay until the end of January 2020:

We reported similar earlier this evening:

But the BBC’s Europe editor has this:

The division list for the programme motion shows just five Labour MPs rebelled to support it. They were joined by 285 Tory MPs and 18 independents in supporting the motion. Those Labour MPs are:

• Kevin Barron
• Jim Fitzpatrick
• Caroline Flint
• Kate Hoey
• John Mann

The list showed 233 Labour MPs opposed the motion along with 35 SNP, 19 Lib Dem, 10 DUP, four Plaid Cymru and the Green Party MP Caroline Lucas; as well as five Independent Group for Change MPs and 15 independents.

No current Tory MPs rebelled but nine of those 15 independents were recently kicked out of the party for rebelling against the government. They are:

• Guto Bebb
• Ken Clarke
• Justine Greening
• Dominic Grieve
• Philip Hammond
• Richard Harrington
• Anne Milton
• Antoinette Sandbach
• Rory Stewart

No current Conservative MPs voted against the government on the withdrawal agreement bill. But three former Tory members from whom the whip was withdrawn last month did:

• Dominic Grieve
• Justine Greening
• Guto Bebb

In all, 19 Labour MPs rebelled to support the prime minister’s withdrawal agreement bill. They were:

• Kevin Barron
• Sarah Champion
• Rosie Cooper
• Jon Cruddas
• Gloria De Piero
• Jim Fitzpatrick
• Caroline Flint
• Mike Hill
• Dan Jarvis
• Emma Lewell-Buck
• John Mann
• Grahame Morris
• Lisa Nandy
• Melanie Onn
• Stephanie Peacock
• Jo Platt
• Ruth Smeeth
• Laura Smith
• Gareth Snell

Barring Barron, Cooper, Fitzpatrick, Flint and Mann, none of those supported May’s deal during any of the three meaningful votes on it.

Following the programme motion vote, the SNP’s Westminster leader, Ian Blackford, told MPs:

The facts of the matter are this is yet another humiliating defeat for the prime minister this evening who has sought to railroad through this house legislation that requires proper scrutiny.

Furthermore, it is absolutely clear what must now happen, because there is legislation passed by this house, it is the law of the land. On the basis of not agreeing a deal, that the prime minister is instructed – instructed, prime minister – to seek an extension.

The Father of the House, Ken Clarke, said:

Can I ask the prime minister and everybody else to reconsider the suggestion he made that we pause the progress of the bill tomorrow?

I can’t quite see the logic of pausing progress on the bill when the whole house is expecting the next two days to be spent on it.

It would enable us to see how quickly the house is actually proceeding, what sort of time is being looked for, it may enable then, if people start filibustering, which I hope they won’t, for the government to get a majority for a timetable motion if it came back which was a modest adjustment to the one he had, because I think three or four days more would certainly do it.

The leader of the Commons, Jacob Rees-Mogg, is on his feet setting out how the government intends to proceed. He tells MPs there will be a debate on the Queen’s speech on Wednesday and Thursday and that the Commons will not sit on Friday.

The shadow leader, Valerie Vaz, reiterates Labour’s offer to work to find a consensus on the Brexit bill’s timetabling.

Following the defeat of the programme motion, the prime minister told MPs:

Can I say in response how welcome it is, even joyful that for the first time in this long saga, this house has actually accepted its responsibilities together, come together, and embraced a deal?

I congratulate honourable members across the house on the scale of our collective achievement because, just a few weeks ago, hardly anybody believed that we could reopen the withdrawal agreement, let alone abolish the backstop. That is indeed what they were saying.

And certainly nobody thought we could secure the approval of the house for a new deal and we should not overlook the significance of this moment.

And I pay particular tribute to those members of the house who were sceptical and who had difficulties and doubts and who decided to place the national interest ahead of any other consideration.

I must express my disappointment that the house has again voted for delay, rather than a timetable that would have guaranteed that the UK would be in a position to leave the EU on 31 October with a deal.

And we now face further uncertainty and the EU must make up their minds over how to answer parliament’s request for a delay. And the first consequence, Mr Speaker, is that the government must take the only responsible course and accelerate our preparations for a no-deal outcome.

The Commons Speaker has indicated that the government intends to set out in a business statement shortly how it wants to proceed.