Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
LAST UPDATE | 29 Jan 2019
TONIGHT, THE UK parliament had the chance to vote on seven proposed amendments to Theresa May’s defeated Withdrawal Agreement.
British Prime Minister’s Brexit deal was rejected by 230 votes two weeks ago; MPs are now trying to take over the Brexit process from May’s government, and dictate what happens next.
Some of the amendments – such as the Brady amendment and the Malthouse amendment – proposed changes to the Irish backstop, which the Irish government previously described as a watertight guarantee from the British government that a hard border would not reappear on the island of Ireland because of Brexit.
We covered the developments from before the crucial votes began 7pm, and as reaction came in to the decision from MPs to back the Brady amendment.
Here’s how it unfolded.
Before we begin, let’s talk about the amendments on offer, and why they’re politically powerful, but carry no legal clout.
There is no obligation for any amendments that are approved tonight to be adopted by the UK government – but it could put pressure on the European Union to tweak the deal in order to avoid the UK “crashing out”.
This is despite reports from Brexit correspondent Tony Connolly reporting this evening that Jean-Claude Juncker told Theresa May at 12pm today there would be no reopening of the Irish backstop or the Withdrawal Agreement.
It’s also not certain that all seven amendments chosen by House Speaker John Bercow will be voted on tonight.
On the day that the Withdrawal Agreement was historically defeated, just three of the four amendments were voted on, as those who introduced the amendments chose not to put them forward for a vote.
The one amendment that was voted on – one that would give the UK the power to withdraw from the Irish backstop unilaterally – was rejected by 600 votes to 24.
Among the most likely to be approved are two on the Irish backstop:
Another amendment on the backstop, amendment (k), proposes that it “will not approve a Withdrawal Agreement which includes a Northern Ireland backstop”.
If you want to follow proceedings in the House of Commons:
You can also follow our Liveblog, obviously, as we will be collate all the results, reactions, and more colourful clips from a particularly lively House of Commons.
Speaking of colourful, here’s the latest from the brilliant Ian Dunt.
And they’re off.
MPs have begun voting on Jeremy Corbyn’s amendment (a), which “requires ministers to secure sufficient time for the UK Parliament to consider and vote on options to prevent the UK leaving the EU without a ratified Withdrawal Agreement and Political Declaration”.
Just as voting starts – staunch Brexiteers have turned heads elsewhere.
The ERG group, which includes senior pro-Brexit MPs such as Jacob Rees-Mogg, has announced that it will back the Brady amendment.
A reminder of what that is:
At end, add “and requires the Northern Ireland backstop to be replaced with alternative arrangements to avoid a hard border; supports leaving the European Union with a deal and would therefore support the Withdrawal Agreement subject to this change”.
MP for Wycombe Steve Baker has said on behalf of the ERG:
We have collectively agreed to support Brady on the basis of the Prime Minister’s promises, especially reopening the Withdrawal Agreement, and that the backstop is only the worst problem.
The Irish government won’t be happy with that.
Speaking of the Irish Government, our political correspondent Christina Finn has the latest from the Cabinet meeting – Leo had a chat with Theresa May today.
In relation to the votes in Westminster, the government is holding its cards close to its chest, with the government spokesperson stating they will allow Westminster “take its course” this evening.
Once the votes have taken place, a statement from the Irish government is expected to follow. Leo Varadkar received communications by phone today from Theresa May, which was described as “brief” and merely outlined that further communications by way of a phone call will take place later this evening.
It is understood the Taoiseach has been waiting to hear from the UK Prime Minister for about a week, before those brief communications were received today. The government spokesperson said: “Everyone would like to see clarity.”
However, he added that the Irish government’s position remains the same – “there is only one deal on the table – the withdrawal agreement – that remains the EU position as well”.
He added that no one has come up with an alternative to the backstop.
As expected, Corbyn’s amendment is defeated.
Onto the next one.
The House of Commons is now voting on amendment (o) tabled by the Scottish National Party’s Ian Blackford.
This proposes a few changes, mainly that because Scotland voted to remain in the EU in the 2016 referendum, that Scotland will not leave on the 29 March.
Line 1, leave out from “House” to end and add “notes that the Scottish Parliament, National Assembly for Wales and House of Commons all voted overwhelmingly to reject the Prime Minister’s deal; calls for the Government to seek an extension of the period specified under Article 50(3) of the Treaty on European Union; agrees a No Deal outcome should be ruled out; and recognises that if the UK is an equal partnership of nations, the 62% vote to remain at the EU referendum on 23 June 2016 in Scotland should be respected and that the people of Scotland should not be taken out of the EU against their will.”
It won’t pass.
John Bercow confirms that Blackford’s suggestion has been heavily defeated.
ERG chairman Jacob Rees-Mogg is speaking to Sky News as the third vote continues.
In the end all decisions have a compromise… I want Brexit to be delivered and if that means compromises, then so be it. The backstop meant we didn’t get Brexit.
When asked on what the alternative arrangements would be, Rees-Mogg refers to a document and tells the Sky News presenter to look at it.
“You must forgive me I must go and vote against Mr Grieve’s dangerous amendment,” Rees-Mogg says from the depths of the House of Commons.
A courteous put down.
Let’s have a look at Mr Grieve’s “dangerous amendment”.
Amendment (g):
This proposes that the House of Commons hold six days throughout February and March for MPs to debate and vote on Brexit, the last day that you could hold the debate being 26 March – just three days before Brexit.
Votes are in on Dominic Grieve’s amendment – it was a close one, but no cigar (will the UK have less/more expensive cigars in the event of a no-deal Brexit?)
Mood.
Next up to be voted on: amendment (b).
Proposed by Labour MP Yvette Cooper, it would mean that if there is no deal by 26 February, the government must delay Britain’s departure from the bloc by nine months until 31 December 2019.
After a close vote on the Grieve amendment, this could get over the line.
Meanwhile as a political storm brews inside Westminster, a snowstorm starts outside.
Now is the winter of our discontent, yadda yadda.
We have discontent, passion… but indifference is a new one in the House of Commons.
And still, we even have that.
“I’m past caring what the deal is. I will vote for it,” Oliver Letwin told the House of Commons right before MPs voted.
Hear ye, hear ye: The results of the Yvette Cooper amendment are in.
Quite a resounding defeat there.
House Speaker John Bercow shouts “DIVISION!” before MPs jump up to vote.
Can’t help wondering if that is an eerie forecast of what is in store for Ireland and the future of the backstop.
Dominic Raab, a former Brexit Secretary, is speaking to Sky News.
He said that renegotiating the backstop was “not a question of whether they can do it, but a question of whether they want to do it”.
He added that it was a question of political will, referring to conversations he had with EU chief negotiator Michel Barnier during his tenure in office.
Important statements as support for an amendment to replace the Irish backstop gathers support at the 11th hour.
Channel 4 has confirmed Tony Connolly’s report from earlier that Theresa May was told the EU would not renegotiate the Withdrawal Agreement – BEFORE she indicated otherwise to the House of Commons.
The results to the Reeves amendment is in – that’s amendment (j)
Here’s what was rejected:
At end, add “and, in the event that the House of Commons has not passed a resolution approving the negotiated withdrawal agreement and the framework for the future relationship for the purposes of section 13(1)(b) of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 by 26 February 2019, requires the Prime Minister to seek an extension to the period of two years specified in Article 50(3) of the Treaty on European Union.”.
The Spelman amendment is the second last vote we’ll have tonight. It has a chance of passing.
In short, it rules out leaving the EU without a deal.
At end, add “and rejects the United Kingdom leaving the European Union without a Withdrawal Agreement and a Framework for the Future Relationship.”
There is a growing sentiment among pro-Brexit demonstrators and voters to leave the EU without a deal – but this contrasts with the views in the House of Commons, as most MPs are averse to leaving without a deal.
Earlier today, the Irish government outlined that there would be fewer jobs and listed the WTO tariffs that would be introduced in the event of a no-deal Brexit.
Businesses don’t like uncertainty, but Brexit means uncertainty… and Brexit.
The Spelman amendment results are in… and we have our first approved amendment.
Some of the immediate reaction to that amendment passing: “that is odd”, “setback for Theresa May”.
We’re onto the final amendment, which is the one that is most likely to pass.
Amendment (n) by Sir Graham Brady suggests replacing the Irish backstop with unspecified “alternative arrangements” that would avoid a hard border.
MPs hope that if this amendment is passed, it will give Theresa May extra firepower to tweak her Brexit Withdrawal Agreement.
This is big – the Irish government will be paying close attention to this one. Results iminent.
Here’s the wording:
At end, add “and requires the Northern Ireland backstop to be replaced with alternative arrangements to avoid a hard border; supports leaving the European Union with a deal and would therefore support the Withdrawal Agreement subject to this change.”
The tension.
The Brady amendment has passed.
There were roars of approval just before the results were announced.
You can read more about what exactly has been approved here.
Theresa May is speaking to the House of Commons after that vote.
She said “it won’t be easy” going back to the EU asking to alter the Withdrawal Agreement, to the sound of jeers and shouting.
She asks Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn to meet her, to which he replies and says he will.
SNP’s Ian Blackford has just told the House of Commons that voting for the Brady amendment “has ripped apart the Good Friday Agreement”.
He says that the House has reneged on the backstop and reneged on the Good Friday Agreement.
DUP deputy leader Nigel Dodds is speaking in the House of Commons.
He says he opposes statements that say this vote “drives a horse and coach through the Good Friday Agreement”, to many cheers from MPs (it’s important to note that the DUP opposed the Good Friday Agreement itself).
“For the first time the House by a majority has expressed the sort of deal that will get through and will have a majority,” he says, and adds he’ll work with May to progress this sentiment further.
Here’s a fun tool.
It shows how MPs voted for each amendment, breaking it down by party.
The Spelman amendment results are here:
A spokesperson for EU Council President Donald Tusk has reacted to the vote tonight:
The backstop is part of the Withdrawal Agreement, and the Withdrawal Agreement is not open for re-negotiation.
Seán Murray here, taking over from Gráinne Ní Aodha.
And we have the Irish government’s reaction to Westminster vote just in. And it’s adamant nothing will be renegotiated.
The government said: “The EU position on the Withdrawal Agreement, including the backstop, is set out in the conclusions of the December meeting of the European Council. It has not changed.
The Withdrawal Agreement is not open for re-negotiation.
“The Agreement is a carefully negotiated compromise, which balances the UK position on customs and the single market with avoiding a hard border and protecting the integrity of the EU customs union and single market.
The best way to ensure an orderly withdrawal is to ratify this Agreement.
“We have consistently said that we want the closest possible future relationship between the EU and the UK. A change in the UK red lines could lead to a change in the Political Declaration on the framework for the future relationship, and a better overall outcome.
We will continue our preparations for all outcomes, including for a no-deal scenario.
So to recap… MPs voted tonight in favour of a Brexit withdrawal agreement that doesn’t include the backstop.
But the existing Brexit withdrawal agreement does include a backstop.
Theresa May now has a mandate from her parliament to go back to the EU and try to renegotiate a deal that doesn’t include a backstop.
Ireland and the EU have said any such renegotiation isn’t gonna happen.
Who’ll blink first?
The Brexiteers are certainly happy with tonight’s result.
Boris Johnson was asked on Sky News about Donald Tusk’s statement.
He said it wasn’t surprising that the EU is resisting compromise at this point.
So why the bullishness of the Brexiteers on this one?
Sir Graham Brady, who put forward the amendment, said it would give May “enormous firepower” to go back to Brussels and renegotiate the Brexit divorce deal.
In effect, it’s giving May the chance to go to Brussels and say something along the lines of “look, this is the only kind of Brexit that parliament will agree on”, and hope the EU bends to avoid the UK crashing out without a deal.
A no-deal Brexit would be bad for the UK, but also bad for many of its neighbours around the EU – not least Ireland as Paschal Donohoe said today.
All along, however, the Irish government and the EU have been in solidarity over a) the current withdrawal agreement and b) the backstop.
If the position of the EU is maintained, then the likelihood of a no-deal Brexit will continue to loom large.
Sky News’ political editor Faisal Islam had this succinct analysis earlier on about why proceedings tonight may have actually made a no-deal Brexit much more likely.
Currently lost for words, courtesy of this nugget from Guardian political correspondent Jessica Elgot.
SNP leader Nicola Sturgeon has been sharply critical in her reaction to the Commons vote tonight.
Boris Johnson is continuing the press rounds.
He’s now told the BBC that the passing of the amendment is “terrific”, and that the EU will be “compelled” to renegotiate.
And with that, we’ll bring an end to tonight’s liveblog.
A night when everything changed (MPs finally reaching a majority on some kind of Brexit deal – one that eliminates the backstop – clearing the way for May to renegotiate with Brussels).
And also nothing changed (Ireland and the EU stayed united and said renegotiations would not be happening).
The next few days will see how this plays out but, with precious little time until the Brexit date of 29 March, this could yet be only a temporary reprieve for Theresa May.
Thanks for joining us, and good night!
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
Eoin Ó Broin is correct on this one. Renting out a room in a property you live in yourself is fine by me, but when tranches of entire properties are being let out on an almost industrial scale it has to have negative consequences for everyone.
A lot of people like staying in an actual house rather than a room. How is this negative?
The massive shortage of rental properties perhaps?
@Darren Bates: The owner most likely doesn’t have the right planning permission to let out their house, for one. Secondly, the neighbours won’t take too kindly to the noise and anti-social behaviour it often brings to their locality.
Thirdly, as discussed elsewhere, it removes housing stock from the market which could be used for actual homes, and repurposes it to be used as a cash cow to be milked by speculative owners.
Fourth, it converts streets and apartment developments from communities into unstaffed hotel complexes without any of the necessary facilities and resources available.
Finally, it will probably make your house/apartment harder to sell if it’s stuck beside such a house.
People invest in property to make money not to fix a disasterous housing strategy from a series of governments. Build more houses
@Captain kirk: Yes, and people also use AirBnb for profit and so should regulated fully. Just because it’s a novel idea, doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be regulated in full like any other sector.
I paid 30k in tax last year on my income. I’ll pay more this year unless there’s a downturn on the way. I’ve no objection to people making a few quid, Airbnb included, but I strongly object to them doing it under the counter.
@Mr Snuffleupagus: you going to report your sister in law’s “considerable income” to revenue then?
And what has your income tax got to do with this?
Nobody is doing anything under the counter as revenue are informed of any dealings on Airbnb by the company. If they choose not to declare the income it would be easy for revenue to find out
Eric. When did it become the private sectors responsibility to provide housing/homes?
If you own a house it is yours to do what you please with, goes with ownership.
The problem is 1) it’s against planning permission 2) it invalidates block insurance policy 3) it creates anti-social behaviour and security issues 4) it removes much needed housing stock from the rental market.
Great that people are making a few quid from letting out a spare room, not so great when individuals and businesses remove decent homes in prime locations from the market at a time of a housing emergency. Yes we need more homes built, but there’s no point building when a portion of homes are being siphoned off as de facto hotels.
Strong need for regulation similar to that being introduced in other cities. What is the cost to the economy in having these properties being removed from the residential market?
@declan obrien: wrong, a guest would very quickly get a bad reputation if anti social and would not be allowed to stay anywhere else. Likewise due to the owners not giving a great experience to guests. Guests are no more antisocial than many tenants. Clearly airbnb are a boon to the tourist industry and contribute hugely to Ireland Inc. They also provide an alternative for home owners who are totally uncomfortable with the government’s continuous and self defeating attempts to tell people what they can and cannot do with their homes regarding the private rental market. The idea appears to be to encourage people to just go on the dole, not to work, not to try to improve one lot, just take, take, take. Fine much more “regulations” and we will do just that.
@Jeremy DeChad: I’m not just talking about anti-social behaviour in the sense of people trashing an apartment (although this of course does happen) – its more about the basic disruption that comes with living in a de facto hotel, cleaning crews coming in, guests arriving day and night etc. (i’m referring to the full-scale commercial letting of homes as hotels, not occasionally letting out rooms, which is a brilliant idea)
I agree with you that the rental sector is badly in need of reform – but Airbnb is not the answer in the long term. Allowing it to operate on a commercial basing, subverting planning regulation and having property owners avoid their commercial obligations while at the same time removing stock from the residential supply is just helping to add to the social problems. It’s one part of a puzzle, but Airbnb is doubling in size every year, so the issues are only set to intensify.
Also, it’s been established that this commercial activity is against planning law. If a unit is operating commercially, should it not be paying commercial rates, water rates, etc?
@declan, not clear that it is against planning law and you do have the same recourse as with any noisy, nuisance neighbour. What about the huge contribution to the economy from people who otherwise would not come. Ultimately aforementioned aside I beg to say that I should be able to do what I want with my home as per my constitutional property rights, as long as I am not breaking any rules re noise etc and I would like to use airbnb, it just suits me as I want my place back whenever I want. This is a case of gov’t interfering a little to much, but then maybe I need to learn to play the system and fill out that dole application form.
Air bnb…the largest hotel operator in the world and it owns no property.
@Dick Durkin: Just like Facebook creates no content, Alibaba carries no stock, and Uber owns no vehicles. It’s a brave new world
Putting power back into the hands of the people.
@_doesnotcompute: “Facebook creates no content, Alibaba carries no stock, and Uber owns no vehicles. It’s a brave new world” – and they all are worth billions $ !!
It’s a service. I’ve used them and to be honest between hostels and air bnb it’s allowed me to travel around the world for very cheap. Great service and I’ll continue to use them. Not in Ireland though. Everything here is over priced
So thats about 2,500 each of these people pay in extra tax each year then.
@Nick Allen: Are they all declaring? How do you know?
Ha yeah, I’d like to see how many have declared that!
1. Doubt that everyone declares the income.
2. Someone on low income would have a much lower tax liability (if declared)!
Airbnb passes on the figures to the revenue so they know anyway…
@Reg: I’d have no objection to Airbnb in principle, but having it negatively affect other bona fide businesses like BnB’s who have overheads and are regulated, doesn’t strike me as fair.
As long as AirBnb is regulated to the same degree I see no problem.
6000 plus hosts. Wonder how many made tax returns! It’s good that the information is passed to Revenue, hopefully they catch up with those that don’t file returns.
@Captain kirk:
Exactly.
We always get “there not declaring it” comments.
If anyone is renting out their property on Airbnb and not declaring it in the full knowledge that their details are been passed to the revenue, well they deserve the inevitable double the tax involved plus 18% interest in fines
@Reg: Unlikey they’ll catch up with them. I have a sister in law doing it since day 1 and has made considerable income from it these last few years. I wouldn’t begrudge her the income as she genuinely needs it to keep a roof over her head, but she damn sure doesn’t file returns.
@Glascott Richard Symes: 2 years ago revenue clarified that it does not apply to short term lettings of a few nights like Air BnB mostly operate
@Mr Snuffleupagus:
She / others may have gotten away with that in the past, but details of every penny earned by an Irish host since May 2015 has been passed to Revenue.
Would strongly recommend you let her know this (though am sure she’s aware).
@Brinster:
Also there is no time limit on when they can come back to her on that, I have seen guys on Stubbs list recently for income earned in the eighties. The interest was considerably more than the tax in question.
It’s actually safer to steal the money, you would probably only get probation if you stole it but the revenue will get theirs, of the estate if necessary.
Airbnb has now become vital in attracting tourism to ireland. The government should be doing everything to encourage it. We can’t afford to jeopardise that kind of income for the economy
@Captain kirk: As we’ve recently been told there is a shortage of hotel rooms in Ireland, you may have a strong point there. But there has to be a level playing field for businesses.
How many rooms/properties do you have on Airbnb cap?
Not enough Jason
Best of luck with them
Typical people making some extra cash to pay bills etc and the government wants to stick it’s F**kin nose in because hoteliers are upset ? If you rent out a spare room in your own home why is it the business of the government to get involved FFS !
I don’t think the government are that concerned about people renting out their spare room for some extra cash. But they are absolutely right to be concerned by people running it as a business, letting out full properties without the necessary planning authorisation or paying any tax on the income.
Well the government previously allowed a 12k exemption on letting a room in your own home and they have last year clarified that the exemption doesnt apply for airbnb. Suddenly after pressure from hoteliers they do care about taxing small profits.
@reg http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/housing/owning_a_home/home_owners/rent_a_room_scheme.html great government F*** over small people the rule was changed last year
@Reg:
I would fully agree with you but a colleague of mine told me his parent’s, who rent out a couple of rooms in their house received a letter from the revenue asking about their AirBnB income
Tax the shit out of it. We have a rental crisis, and rental crisis or no rental crisis that amount of money needs to be regulated and taxed.
@Mr Snuffleupagus: yep..tax them all, the houses, the rooms, the owners, the neighbors, the dogs, the sheep, the houses, the cars, the buses + trains, the businesses, the workers, the shoppers, the farmers…tax the lot..TAX IRELAND…Céad Mile Fáilte (..tax that to…)
tax my comment as well ……sure why don’t you…your taxing every phuckin thing else !
@CJ Stewart: Thats’ right. everything is taxed. every penny I spend in the shop, pub, petrol, clothes. for my dogs I pay for an annual licence. everything is taxed. Get over it!
@Mr Snuffleupagus: when i’m ‘getting over it’…do I pay tax on that as well ? … maybe we could call it the GOT tax…the ‘Getting Over’it Tax’ …..send that one up the pipe line to Noonan…
Even when you die, you (estate) still pay tax
@Finbarr Barry: …tax that corpse …….
…including your sisters I assume…
There’s a lot of landlords that have been stung by tenants in the past .. non payments of rent ..property left badly damaged and more and more people are turning to air b&b because of it …
Airbnb owners pay tax at income tax rates on small profits on their own properties whereas hotels pay corporate tax rates. Seem fair? Not to me. Its your property you should be allowed do what you want with it. Private home owners arent responsible for solving the housing crisis.
@GunsGerms:
it is still more income for the private owner and income is subject to tax. After all, don’t we have to pay for our world class services, highly efficient health service, underpaid civil servants and the wonderful government that manager our country for us.
Why don’t dcc use airbnb to house the homeless
Airbnb..Tent for rent up in here Leitrim, Just like a home from home, all complaints ignored, free WiFi with neighbors password and accidentally eco-friendly…..Irish welcome assured..
Air bnb is just excuse to cover up our houseing problem, you work hard buy a 2 nd property why should you be told what you can do with it.
The real problem is one law for one and one for another,
There was a lady on the great Ireland sell of mortgage 2 something k a vulture bought her loan for 40 k just so the bank could write it off, imagine how better things be here if they just took smaller payments from the likes of her,
This is why our houseing is a mess our government createing markets just so a few can squeeze even more from us.
I m not saying air bnb dosen effect stock, if it we around 20 od years back when more bought their homes it be seen as great thing all these tourists visiting places they normally wouldnt go, the extra cash people with spare rooms get more cash for the economy means more spending.
Don’t tell the government this, they will air bnb apollo house now too! Wait… They ain’t that smart!
The downside of airbnb is that it is making the housing crisis worse by taking house and apartments out of the market
have your say