EU referendum vote reaction – live coverage

David Cameron suffered the largest postwar rebellion on Europe as 81 Conservative MPs supported a referendum on UK membership of the EU. Follow the latest developments. 1.41pm: Kenneth Clarke is always good for trade. He was giving evidence for less than an hour, but the stories just kept pouring out. I’ll post a summary shortly. 1.33pm: Julian Huppert asks about social media. Q: David Cameron talked about turning off social media during riots. What do you think of that? Clarke says companies have agreed to be cooperative. They will remove illegal material from their sites. The government is not proposing to close these sites. But they do cause trouble for the police, he says. Q: In November Britain will take over the presidency of the Council of Europe. What are your ambitions? Clarke says he had a meeting on this this morning. The Foreign Office are in the lead on this. Britain wants to get reform. There is a lot of support amongst other member states for reform, he says. He wants the European court of human rights to stop taking up “trivial” cases. Q: Would you agree with what Dominic Grieve, the attorney general, said last night about the desirability of Britain having the right to challenge court judgments ? Clarke says he has not studied Grieve’s comments in detail. 1.29pm: James Clappison asks about work in prisons. Q: What are you doing to promote work in prisons? Clarke says this is a priority for him. More and more prisons are turning to a more demanding working day. Q: Do you agree on the need for alcohol tests for offenders? Clarke says Boris Johnson is keen on this. He has had a brief chat with Johnson about this. But he does not know who would administer the tests. The temperance movement has always wanted to take people off drink. With offenders, it would be helpful. But who will carry out these tests? 1.26pm: Mark Reckless asks about the court. Q: Courts sat through the night after the riots. Can they do this normally? Clarke says the court response was very effective. There has been no general criticism of the courts. And there has been no general criticism of the sentencing, he says. But he wants to learn lessons from the speed of the process. Clarke says he does not think he needs night sitting. If they sat through the night, the courts would run out of things to do. But evening sittings have their attractions. They are convenient for witnesses who are at work during the day. But they are costly too, because you have to pay overtime. Clarke says the government is looking at extending evening sittings. 1.23pm: Alun Michael returns to sentencing. Q: Some 24% of rioters did not have a previous conviction. But in 2010 23% of people convicted for an indictable offence did not have a previous conviction. What conclusions can you draw from that? Clarke says the riot figures are consistent with the norm. But the norm is wrong, he says. In some places the rioting was “straight theft”. In other places it was organised. And in some places it was “rage with the police”. 1.21pm: David Winnick asks about the policing. Clarke says the scale of the rioting was “totally unexpected”. Q: Will the government look again at the reduction in police numbers? Clarke says this is for the home secretary, but he does not think the cuts should be reconsidered. Police numbers have “exploded” in recent years. Many officers are on sick leave. And officers patrol in pairs where they used to patrol individually. Winnick says at least on this issue Clarke is sticking to the government line. 1.14pm: Labour’s Alun Michael is asking the questions now. Q: How do the figures for previous convictions relate to a control sample. Clarke says one in four adults has a previous conviction. So 76% is higher than you would expect, he says. Mark Reckless takes over the questioning. Q: What do you think caused the rioting? Clarke says it was an “irresponsible feckless reaction from people casually turning to crime because the opportunity presented itself”. Clarke says that, as a product of the 1960s, he does tend to do moralising. But he was “slightly shocked” by how easily some people “casually took to thieving”. Public perception is a problem. People have been persuaded that serious criminals will walk out of court. But that’s not true, he says. 1.08pm: Keith Vaz turns to the riots. He says that Clarke blamed the rioting on a “feral underclass”. Q: Have you met any rioters? No, says Clarke. Q: So where did you get the idea that a feral underclass was involved? Vaz says the committee met some rioters at Feltham Young Offenders institution, and some of them seemed to be people who went riot shopping. Clarke says 76% of people who were cautioned or convicted over rioting had previous convictions. Some 40% of them had more than five previous convictions. He suggests that some of the offenders at Feltham were not telling the committee the truth. Q: What evidence is there that gangs were involved? Clarke says it varied from place to place. An official sitting with Clarke says 13% of those arrested for rioting were gang members. In London, the figure was 19%. 1.06pm: Another question on sentencing. Q: Why can’t you put a parliamentary committee in charge of drawing up sentencing guidelines? Clarke says every case is different. It is difficult for parliament to take that on board. Sentences are tougher than they used to be, he says. People who complain about sentences think there was a “golden age” when sentences were longer. That’s not true. Q: Would people respect sentences more if parliament were involved in setting them? No, says Clarke. 1.03pm: Labour’s Alun Michael asks about sentencing. Q: Is there always a tension between parliament and the courts over this? Clarke says parliament is less inclined to trust the judges than it used to be. Parliament now mounts a “running commentary” on sentencing, usually based on the way cases have been reported in the papers. There are more sentencing guidelines, he says. You do need guidelines to ensure consistency. But off-the-cuff comments from MPs on a single case, “based on what it says in a popular newspaper”, are not helpful, he says. 1.00pm: Clarke is still talking about mandatory sentences. He says the “three strikes and you’re out” legislation for burglary is still on the statute book. But it has no effect, he says, because the judges always find some way of ignoring the rule if they think a custodial sentence would be disproportionate. 12.53pm: They turn to knife crime. Q: Why are you opposing proposals for manadatory sentences for juveniles involved in knife crime ? Clarke says the talks about this are still going on. But there are claims that 40% of cases involving knife crime involve juveniles. That’s not true, he says. He also says that mandatory sentences are an American innovation. In the UK judges normally have discretion. He would have concerns about mandatory jail sentences for 13-year-olds. Clarke says he is still considering this. But he thinks the government should not legislate for mandatory sentences for juveniles without careful consideration. He says the only crimes that carries a mandatory sentence for a juveniles are firearms offences. 12.51pm: Kenneth Clarke , the justice secretary, is giving evidence to the home affairs committee. It’s mostly about the riots, but Keith Vaz, the chairman, starts by asking about Clarke’s dispute with Theresa May about the human rights act. Q: Have you settled your dispute with May? Clarke said the case cited by May did not have anything to do with the Human Rights Act. And the cat was not relevant, he says. He says the dispute was one of those that blows up at party conference. 12.24pm: Here’s a lunchtime summary. • Labour have claimed that the government is badly split after senior cabinet ministers delivered seperate messages about the importance of repatriating powers from the EU. On the Today programme this morning Michael Gove, the Conservative education secretary, said that he wanted to see a renegotiation leading to the repatriation of some powers this parliament. But Nick Clegg, the Lib Dem deputy prime minister, has played down this idea, suggesting that some Eurosceptics were “tilting at windmills”. Labour’s Douglas Alexander said there was showed there was “weakness, division and infighting” over Europe at the heart of the government. But Lib Dem sources have dismissed a claim on Twitter (see 10.52am) saying that Clegg was ruling out any repatriation of powers. The quote was taken out of context, an aide said, because Clegg was talking about the prospect of Brussels unilaterally deciding to hand powers back to Britain, not about a wide-ranging re-organisation. Intriguingly, the aide said Clegg broadly support a call from Lord Ashdown in the Times today (see 11.43am) for a “rebalancing” of the EU. • David Cameron has sought to make peace with the Tory Eurosceptics who rebelled against the government yesterday. “There is, on my part, no bad blood, no rancour, no bitterness,” he said. “These are valued Conservative colleagues.” (See 12.04pm.) • But one leading Eurosceptic has said that Cameron will have to concede a referendum on the EU before 2015. Mark Pritchard said: “If the government’s policy has changed to offering a referendum only when there is a possible future Conservative majority government as opposed to when there are transfers of powers to Brussels or treaty changes in this Parliament, then that policy will be overtaken by events, become politically unsustainable, and will not be acceptable to the majority of the Conservative backbenchers.” • Clegg has announced a reform of business regulation designed to ease the burden on firms . Changing the mindset within central government is one thing. But we make the rules – we don’t enforce them. There are a range of bodies responsible for inspection: HMRC, the Environment Agency, the Health and Safety Executive, to name a few. And they need to undergo this culture change too. They need to understand that their job is to make your life easier, not harder. So there will be a major shake up of business inspection – going through the regulators, asking ‘are they still necessary?’; ‘Should they still exist?’; making sure that, yes, they intervene when necessary, they offer advice and support, but otherwise they let you get on with it. They will need to respect the Regulators’ Compliance Code, which says regulators must think about and encourage economic growth. And they will have to make sure they aren’t breathing down your necks. Why, for example, should regulators be able to turn up at your door whenever they want and as often as they want? Why can’t we limit the number of inspections to, say, two a year, ensuring these bodies coordinate amongst themselves to stick within that limit? Brendan Barber, the TUC general secretary, criticised the plan. “This is another example of the government putting the right to make a fast buck before our health and safety and our lives – although at least the deputy prime minister acknowledges the dangers of the ‘scrap it all’ line peddled by the Tory die-hards,” Barber said. • The Ministry of Defence has announced a £1bn upgrade to the Army’s Warrior armoured vehicles to make them fit for use through to 2040 and beyond. • Unions representing public sector staff have launched a legal action against the government’s decision to change the way their pensions are calculated . 12.04pm: David Cameron has delivered a statement to Sky News about last night’s vote. He was asked if he had any regrets about imposing a three-line whip. Here’s his reply. No, I don’t. In politics you have to confront the big issues rather than sweep them under the carpet and that’s what we did yesterday. This has always been a difficult issue for my party. It always will be. But the important thing is to do the right thing for the country. And it wouldn’t be right for the country right now to have a great big vote on in/out referendum and the rest of it. There is no, on my part, no bad blood, no rancour, no bitterness. These are valued Conservative colleagues. I understand why people feel strongly. And we will go forward together and tackle the difficult decisions that the country faces. But you have to do the right thing and give a lead in politics and that’s what yesterday was about. 11.43am: You can read all today’s Guardian politics stories here. And all the Guardian politics stories filed yesterday, including some in today’s paper, are here. As for the rest of the papers, here are the most interesting articles I’ve found in print and on the web on yesterday’s debate and vote. • Lord Ashdown in the Times (paywall) says that he partly agrees with the Conservatives on the need for Britain to repatriate some powers from the Brussels. In an age when all our democracies are under pressure, [EU institutions] have consistently failed to tackle the yawning democratic and accountability deficits that still infect the heart of the EU machine, while at the same time failing to show the unity or vision to make a real difference where we could, for instance in the Balkans. The result is not something we “pro-Europeans” find it comfortable to admit; Europe’s institutions in their present form have comprehensively lost the confidence of the people they serve … So do I agree with the Tory party in its quest to “repatriate powers” from Brussels? Only up to a point, Lord Copper. I can agree that it would be better if the EU adopted the principle that in matters such as agriculture and fishing, it would set the targets and leave it more to member nations to decide how to achieve them. I agree, too, that it should accept more variation in social norms and intervene much less in those matters that touch on the services of citizens within their own countries. I do not take the view that the single market requires us to be as rigid on these matters as we currently are. But this is only part of the story. If on the one hand the EU gets out of things it doesn’t have to be in, on the other hand, in an increasingly turbulent, even hostile world, it should get deeper into those areas where it benefits all of us to speak with a more powerful voice together than we ever would alone. The Tory party wants to “repatriate” powers as a prelude to weakening the EU and our voice in it. In this climate, that seems to me to be folly of a grand order. Far better to rebalance the powers of the EU so that in those areas where it is in our interest to speak with a louder voice in an inhospitable world, we have the ability to do so. • Steve Richards in the Independent says Europe has become a proxy for other issues in British politics. Up until the early 1990s parties clung to great and real ideological divides for definition. But with the rise of New Labour the divisions over the state, tax, public spending and markets blurred. On both sides, “Europe” filled the vacuum. This version was a multifarious illusion capable of arousing indiscriminate enthusiasm and hostility. From the mid-1990s the Blairite wing of New Labour became passionately in favour of “Europe”. I recall a conversation with a so-called Brownite towards the end of Tony Blair’s first term. He argued perceptively that “Europe” had replaced any other mission for some in New Labour. He suggested that the likes of Blair and Peter Mandelson did not believe any more in other centre-left objectives and so sought purpose by a commitment to “Europe”, a passion that reached its irrational peak when Blair contemplated a referendum in favour of the euro after the war in Iraq. Eurosceptics have an alternative view of “Europe”. They, too, lack a clear view on economic policy after the Thatcherite crusade came to a halt with the financial crisis in 2008. But “Europe” is always there to kick around and to blame for all that is wrong with Britain. • Gideon Rachman on his FT blog says the Eurosceptics rebels are living in the past and ahead of their time. Is it possible for politicians to be both living in the past and ahead of their time? That is how I feel about the Tory Eurosceptics, who have just given David Cameron a nasty shock, by defying the government in large numbers to demand a referendum on British membership of the European Union … In some respects, these sceptics seem to me to be fighting the battles of twenty years ago. Many of them entered politics in the early 1990s when the EU’s drive for “ever closer union” -led by Jacques Delors and opposed by Margaret Thatcher – was at its height … On the other hand, I think the sceptics may also be ahead of their time, in certain respects. Their demands for a fundamental re-think of the powers of the Union – and the repatriation of some powers to Britain – seemed Quixotic at a time when the EU was confidently expanding in powers and size. But, it now seems clear that, however the euro-crisis is resolved, the EU that emerges at the other side is going to be very different from the Union of a few years ago. • Philip Cowley and Mark Stuart on their Ballots & Bullets blog list 10 key points about last night’s rebellion. Of the 81 Conservative rebels, a massive 48 were new MPs, elected in 2010. Another of the normal rules of rebellions is that newly elected MPs can more easily be kept onside. Not this lot. •Tristran Garel-Jones, the Conservative former Europe minister, says in the Financial Times (subscription) that “Conservative pragmatists” are winning the argument on Europe. All proper Conservatives should be sceptical about the EU. The problem is that the word “sceptical” has been taken over by those who, in their hearts, are opposed to the whole project. So let’s settle for “pragmatic”. I believe that Conservative pragmatists – from Lady Thatcher to Sir John to Mr Cameron – are winning the debate. The principal British interest now is to support our eurozone partners in reaching a treaty-based set of enforceable rules to bring an end to the crisis with the euro. In the longer term, as we all struggle to find the right balance between national and shared sovereignty on a whole range of issues, Britain should continue to play her traditional role as the “awkward squad” in the EU. • Sam Coates in the Times (paywall) says last night’s vote has revealed weaknesses with Cameron’s political operation. Questions have been growing for weeks. First there has been a slew of departures. Mr Cameron’s two most senior political advisers, Andrew Cooper and Steve Hilton, have not bonded. Relations between Craig Oliver, the director of communications, and Gabby Bertin, Mr Cameron’s longstanding political spokeswoman, worsened during the Tory party conference. Friends of the Chief Whip, Patrick McLoughlin, complain that he is being bypassed. This gap has been brought into sharp relief by events of the past week, which friends of Downing Street believe could have been conducted out of the spotlight, if not avoided altogether. • Bagehot on his Economist blog says David Cameron has been making bold promises about Britain’s future relations with Europe. [David Cameron] and Mr [William] Hague between them said there should have been referendums on previous treaties including Maastricht, Nice, Amsterdam and Lisbon, with both of them directly attacking the previous Labour government for failing to hold a referendum on Lisbon. That is a much more radical statement that it may first seem. I think (just about) that a straight in-out referendum could be won in Britain. But any British vote on an individual treaty would be lost. If Britain had held a vote on Lisbon and lost it, that would have been that. It is not conceivable that Britain could have been pressured to vote a second time (as Ireland was over Lisbon) until it gave the right answer. What then? Well, if the other countries in the EU had wanted to press ahead with Lisbon, as certainly the majority did, there would have been the most astonishing, profound crisis in British relations, which could easily have led to Britain falling out of the club. • Paul Goodman at ConservativeHome says that Cameron should ask Oliver Letwin to conduct an immediate review of Conservative policy towards Europe. Most Conservative MPs don’t want Britain to withdraw from the EU. They do, however, want powers repatriated from Brussels. And when the Prime Minister says that he agrees, I’m afraid that, rightly or wrongly, many of them simply don’t believe him. So if he is to make a start in convincing them that they’ve misjudged him, the minimum he should do now is as follows … 11.35am: Douglas Alexander, the shadow foreign secretary, is on Sky. He said that Nick Clegg’s decision to rule out repatriating powers from the EU (see 10.52am) only hours after Michael Gove called for powers to be repatriated (see 9.15am) showed there were was “weakness, division and infighting” over Europe at the heart of the government. 11.22am: According to the Press Association, Nick Clegg claimed the Eurosceptics who were demanding a referendum on Britain’s relationship with the EU were proposing a “smash-and-grab dawn raid on Brussels”. Here’s the key quote. You don’t change Europe by launching some smash-and-grab dawn raid on Brussels. You do it by setting out the case for changes and then arguing the case with other countries. We can’t do this on our own, we have to build alliances, we have to convince and persuade other countries and that is what we look to do all the time. Clegg also said that he was in favour of a referendum in certain circumstances. I have always advocated a vote on Europe if there is a proposal on the table to transfer significant chunks of sovereignty and policy from our country to Brussels, but it’s not on the table. We should stop tilting at windmills about threats and challenges which simply aren’t there right now. Let’s get on with the difficult job of working with our eurozone partners to fix the eurozone, because, let’s face it, unless you’ve got a strong, prosperous eurozone you can’t have a strong, prosperous United Kingdom. We’ve got to ask ourselves in Government, what is our priority? We look at the big picture. Our number one priority is to fix the damage done to the British economy and to lead in Europe, not leave Europe. 11.02am: Mark Pritchard (left), a Conservative rebel and secretary of the 1922 committee, has now said that the government must hold a referendum on the EU before the general election. The government now needs to deliver substance, not just rhetoric, when it comes to its European policy. If the Government’s policy has changed to offering a referendum only when there is a possible future Conservative majority government as opposed to when there are transfers of powers to Brussels or treaty changes in this Parliament, then that policy will be overtaken by events, become politically unsustainable, and will not be acceptable to the majority of the Conservative backbenchers. 10.52am: Michael Gove was evasive when John Humphrys asked him on the Today programme if the Lib Dems would support a move to repatriate powers from Brussels. But, according to Paul Waugh on Twitter, Nick Clegg has just provided an answer. Perfect Day 2 Euro story. Clegg just asked if Govt will seek to repatriate powers from Brussels:”it’s not going to happen”. 10.34am: Michael Gove played down the significance of the Tory split over an EU referendum this morning. (See 9.15am.) But the Eurosceptics (or impatient Eurosceptics – everyone in the Conservative party seems to be Eurosceptic now) are not being so emollient. This is what some of the Tory MPs who vote for the referendum motion have been saying. Mark Pritchard , the secretary of the 1922 committee, said the issue was going to become more important. I think the Conservative party will move on from the vote last night, but I don’t think Europe as an issue is going to move on from this Parliament and as I mentioned yesterday, I think it’s going to be more, rather than less, of an issue, not because the Conservative Parliamentary Party want to supposedly bang on about Europe, but because European leaders are making Europe an issue more and more. He also said there needed to be more clarity about the coalition’s position. I think the important thing from last night is there needs to be clear definition of what the coalition policy on Europe is … I think that we need to have some beef on the policy, we need to have clarity. Is it the case now, for example, a fiscal union will not trigger a referendum under the European Union Act 2011, despite the fact that it will be a significant and fundamental change in our relationship with the European Union and with the eurozone? Sheryll Murray said the vote sent a message to the EU. Well I think what the vote last night did was send a very clear message to Europe, and let’s not forget there are going to be opportunities with the crisis in Europe for perhaps a treaty change, and it sends a very clear message that the United Kingdom is not going to be a walkover. Richard Drax said the issue was crucial. The future of our relationship with the EU is absolutely critical to the future of our country. In our view, if we continue blundering on, sleepwalking on into this disaster, in the longer term it will cost billions of pounds which will go straight down a black hole, in this case Greece’s, so other countries will perhaps end up in the same situation and I suspect they will. 10.33am: Here’s some Guardian video from the EU referendum debate. It shows the moment the result was announced. 10.07am: On the Today programme Michael Gove , the education secretary, was not asked about the IFS report saying education spending is being slashed by more than 14% – the largest cut since the 1950s. But he was asked about it on BBC Breakfast. According to PoliticsHome, here’s his reply. The headline of the report has been reported in a particular way, but if you look at the report it will say, and it confirms, that spending on schools is staying the same, and poorer schools in poorer areas are receiving more money, we’re giving them more cash to spend on the poorest students. It is the case in higher education, that instead of the government providing the funding that it used to in the past. Students have been asked to pay more; we all know that – there was a big debate about tuition fees, and that’s at the heart of what’s assumed to be a reduction in spending. It’s a shift in the burden from other taxpayers to students who will benefit from their degree. 9.57am: Mervyn King, the governor of the Bank of England, is giving evidence to the Commons Treasury committee now about quantitative easing. My colleagues Jill Treanor and Katie Allen are covering it in full on a live blog. 9.15am: The best line in Michael Gove ‘s interview on the Today programme came right at the end. He said the Conservative party was “united as never before” on Europe. And that’s after 81 Tory MPs rebelled. What chutzpah! How did Gove work that one out? Here are the key points. • Gove claimed that the Conservative party was “united as never before” on the need to repatriate powers from the EU to Britain. We are already winning powers back. We need to win more. That process will require careful negotiation. But what we’re fortunate in having is a Conservative party that is united as never before behind that renegotiation. Gove said that while the number of those appeared in the rebellion seemed significant, “the difference in policy between the government’s position and the rebels’ position isn’t that significant and can be exaggerated”. There was a “disagreement on tactics”, he said. But rebels and ministers wanted the same eventual goal. “You have on the Conservative backbenches and in the cabinet colleagues and friends who want to change our relationship with the European Union.” • He said the Tories wanted to repatriate powers affecting the economy. Asked to specify what powers the Tories wanted to repatriate, he said powers over employment law and powers “which affect our capacity to grow”. He went on: “I think there are some specific regulations which govern whom we can hire, how we can hire and how long they work for which actually hold us back.” (In their election manifesto the Conservatives said they wanted to “bring back key powers over legal rights, criminal justice and social and employment legislation to the UK”. In After the Coalition, a recently published “manifesto” for the next Conservative government, five well-regarded backbenchers say Britain should “seek to regain control over its criminal and social law, its financial regulation, farming and fishing policy.”) • He claimed that the Lib Dems were committed to a review of Britain’s relationship with the EU. The coalition agreement called for a review of the “balance of competencies” between Britain and the EU, he said. “That basically means that both parties are agreed that the relationship needs to be reviewed,” he went on. (The key passage in the agreement actually says: “We will examine the balance of the EU’s existing competences and will, in particular, work to limit the application of the working time directive in the United Kingdom.” • He said he wanted to see a renegotiation this parliament. “I would like to see that change in this parliament,” he said. • But he refused to set a timetable for renegotiation. “It is wrong unnecessarily to explain what your tactics are in advance of a negotiation,” he said. “The question of what you ask for and when is a tactical consideration. What’s the strategic goal? Bringing powers back.” He pointed out that the situation in Europe was changing rapidly. And he also said that stablising the eurozone was the priority. • He claimed that the rebellion was a good-natured one. He said that he had spoken to some of the MPs voting against the government and the discussions were “cordial”. He went on: “There was a cordiality between both sides which I think marks a difference from previous discussions in the Conservative party over Europe.” 8.47am: For the record, here is the Press Association’s full list of MPs who voted for the motion calling for a referendum on Britain’s relationship with the EU. Conservatives • 79 Conservatives voted for the motion. They were: Stuart Andrew (Pudsey), Steven Baker (Wycombe), John Baron (Basildon & Billericay), Andrew Bingham (High Peak), Brian Binley (Northampton South), Bob Blackman (Harrow East), Graham Brady (Altrincham & Sale West), Andrew Bridgen (Leicestershire North West), Steve Brine (Winchester), Fiona Bruce (Congleton), Dan Byles (Warwickshire North), Douglas Carswell (Clacton), Bill Cash (Stone), Christopher Chope (Christchurch), James Clappison (Hertsmere), Tracey Crouch (Chatham & Aylesford), David Davies (Monmouth), Philip Davies (Shipley), David Davis (Haltemprice & Howden), Nick de Bois (Enfield North), Caroline Dinenage (Gosport), Nadine Dorries (Bedfordshire Mid), Richard Drax (Dorset South), Mark Field (Cities of London & Westminster), Lorraine Fullbrook (South Ribble), Zac Goldsmith (Richmond Park), James Gray (Wiltshire North), Chris Heaton-Harris (Daventry), Gordon Henderson (Sittingbourne & Sheppey), George Hollingbery (Meon Valley), Adam Holloway (Gravesham), Stewart Jackson (Peterborough), Bernard Jenkin (Harwich & Essex North), Marcus Jones (Nuneaton), Chris Kelly (Dudley South), Andrea Leadsom (Northamptonshire South), Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford), Edward Leigh (Gainsborough), Julian Lewis (New Forest East), Karen Lumley (Redditch), Jason McCartney (Colne Valley), Karl McCartney (Lincoln), Stephen McPartland (Stevenage), Anne Main (St Albans), Patrick Mercer (Newark), Nigel Mills (Amber Valley), Anne-Marie Morris (Newton Abbot), James Morris (Halesowen & Rowley Regis), Stephen Mosley (Chester, City of), Sheryll Murray (Cornwall South East), Caroline Nokes (Romsey & Southampton North), David Nuttall (Bury North), Matthew Offord (Hendon), Neil Parish (Tiverton & Honiton), Priti Patel (Witham), Andrew Percy (Brigg & Goole), Mark Pritchard (Wrekin, The), Mark Reckless (Rochester & Strood), John Redwood (Wokingham), Jacob Rees-Mogg (Somerset North East), Simon Reevell (Dewsbury), Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury), Andrew Rosindell (Romford), Richard Shepherd (Aldridge-Brownhills), Henry Smith (Crawley), John Stevenson (Carlisle), Bob Stewart (Beckenham), Iain Stewart (Milton Keynes South), Gary Streeter (Devon South West), Julian Sturdy (York Outer), Sir Peter Tapsell (Louth & Horncastle), Justin Tomlinson (Swindon North), Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight), Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes), Charles Walker (Broxbourne), Robin Walker (Worcester), Heather Wheeler (Derbyshire South), Craig Whittaker (Calder Valley), John Whittingdale (Maldon), Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes). • Two Tory MPs voted in both the Aye and Noe lobbies, the traditional way of registering an abstention. They were: Iain Stewart (Milton Keynes South) and Mike Weatherley (Hove). • A further two Tory MPs, Peter Bone (Wellingborough) and Philip Hollobone (Kettering) acted as tellers for the motion. Labour • 19 Labour MPs defied the party leadership to support the motion: Ronnie Campbell (Blyth Valley), Rosie Cooper (Lancashire West), Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North), Jon Cruddas (Dagenham & Rainham), John Cryer (Leyton & Wanstead), Ian Davidson (Glasgow South West), Natascha Engel (Derbyshire North East), Frank Field (Birkenhead), Roger Godsiff (Birmingham Hall Green), Kate Hoey (Vauxhall), Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North), Steve McCabe (Birmingham Selly Oak), John McDonnell (Hayes & Harlington), Austin Mitchell (Great Grimsby), Dennis Skinner (Bolsover), Andrew Smith (Oxford East), Graham Stringer (Blackley & Broughton), Gisela Stuart (Birmingham Edgbaston), Mike Wood (Batley & Spen). Lib Dems • One Liberal Democrat, Adrian Sanders (Torbay) voted for the motion. Others • Green leader Caroline Lucas (Brighton Pavilion) voted for the motion. • Eight Democratic Unionist Party MPs voted for the motion: Gregory Campbell (Londonderry East), Nigel Dodds (Belfast North), Jeffrey Donaldson (Lagan Valley), Rev William McCrea (Antrim South), Ian Paisley Junior (Antrim North), Jim Shannon (Strangford), David Simpson (Upper Bann), Sammy Wilson (Antrim East). • Independent MP Lady Sylvia Hermon (Down North) voted for the motion. 8.41am: Reverberations from last night’s vote on the EU referendum will be bouncing around Westminster all day. David Cameron told his MPs yesterday afternoon: “I share the yearning for fundamental reform, and I am determined to deliver it.” But when? Michael Gove, the education secretary, was on the Today programme a few minutes ago, doing his best to play down the significance of the rebellion against the prime minister – but even he struggled to explain when Cameron’s long-promised renegotiation is going to take place. I’ll post a full summary of his interview soon, as well as bringing you all the best reaction, comment and analysis relating to the referendum debate. Otherwise, it’s a fairly routine day, although Kenneth Clarke, at the home affairs committee at lunchtime, could make good copy. Here’s a full list of what’s coming up. 9am: The cabinet meets. 10am: Sir Mervyn King, the governor of the Bank of England, gives evidence to the Commons Treasury committee about quantitative easing. 10am: Unions are launcing a legal challenge to the government’s plans increase pensions in line with the CPI measure of inflation rather than the RPI measure of inflation. 10.30am: Keir Starmer, the director of public prosecutions, gives evidence to the Commons justice committee on joint enterprise prosecutions. 10.45am: The Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs publishes a report on legal highs. 12.45pm: Kenneth Clarke, the justice secretary, gives evidence to the Commons home affairs committee about the riots. 2.20pm: Maria Miller, the minister for the disabled, the health minister, Paul Burstow, and Grant Shapps, the housing minister, give evidence to the joint committee on human rights on the right of disabled people to independent living. As usual, I’ll also be covering the breaking political news, as well as looking at the papers and bringing you the best politics from the web. I’ll post a lunchtime summary at around 12.30pm, before Clarke speaks, and another one at about 4pm. David Cameron Conservatives Liberal-Conservative coalition Foreign policy European Union Andrew Sparrow guardian.co.uk

Posted by on October 25, 2011. Filed under News, Politics, World News. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.