Opposition peers say vote on amendment to secure EU nationals’ rights in Britain is winnable – and could happen this week

Welcome to the Guardian’s weekly Brexit briefing, a summary of developments as Britain heads more or less steadily towards the EU door marked “exit”. If you’d like to receive it as a weekly early morning email, please sign up here.

A quick plea: producing the Guardian’s independent, in-depth journalism takes a lot of time and money. We do it because we believe our perspective matters – and it may well be your perspective, too. If you value our Brexit coverage, become a Guardian Supporter and help make our future more secure. Thank you.



The big picture

The rights of EU citizens in the UK are shaping up to become one of the key Brexit battlegrounds at home and abroad.

In Westminster, opposition peers are confident the government will have to make concessions as its article 50 bill passes through the House of Lords, although Theresa May is confident her timetable to begin talks in April will not be derailed.

No votes are planned in the Lords until the bill reaches its report stage next week, but Labour and Liberal Democrat peers say a vote on an amendment to secure EU nationals’ rights in the UK could come as early as Wednesday, and is winnable.

Opposition peers also believe the government could lose on a second amendment demanding parliament gets a meaningful vote on the final outcome, with a dozen Conservatives, including Tory grandee Michael Heseltine, ready to back it.

The government insists the Brexit bill must and will go through the Lords without peers changing it.

A row is also looming with the EU27 over the cut-off date after which EU citizens’ rights will no longer automatically apply.



The issue is likely to be a big bone of contention in Brexit negotiations, with those who arrived in the UK before the agreed date allowed to stay, and those who come after facing a stricter immigration regime.

The government is thought to want an early cut-off date to prevent a last-minute influx of EU nationals before the UK leaves. The commission and member states believe it should be the actual exit date – since until then the UK is still a member, and must respect EU rights and obligations.

Meanwhile, analysis of government migration data suggests 28% of EU citizens are having their applications for permanent UK residency refused or declared invalid.

The view from Europe

British dosh is also a potential Brexit dealbreaker. The commission president, Jean-Claude Juncker, said the UK could expect a “very hefty” leaving bill and would not be able to walk away without paying for commitments it made while a member:

Our British friends need to know, and they know it already, that it will not be cut-price or zero cost. The bill will be … very steep. It will be necessary for the British to respect commitments that they freely entered into.

The Czech Republic joined Germany, Italy and France in insisting the UK must come to an arrangement on this divorce settlement – expected to come to about €60bn (£50bn) – before any substantive negotiations on a future relationship.

Meanwhile, senior politicians from Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia said the EU would negotiate as a unified bloc and doubted the feasibility of Britain’s aim of negotiating a free trade agreement within the two-year article 50 talks.

And as the colourful language of Britain’s foreign secretary, Boris Johnson, continued to ruffle feathers on the continent, Anna Maria Corazza Bildt, a Swedish MEP publicly took him to task over his description of Brexit as a “liberation”:

In the history of Europe the word ‘liberation’ has a strong meaning … We are neither occupying you, nor a prison.

Meanwhile, back in Westminster

This week the Westminster focus shifted north from London, as Brexit sages pored over the results of last week’s two byelections in Stoke-on-Trent Central and Copeland in Cumbria. Both votes carried mixed messages about the various parties’ fortunes in the post-referendum era.

The headlines focused on Labour’s disastrous loss to the Conservatives of Copeland, a seat it had held since 1924. But this was arguably as much down to more general worries about the party under Jeremy Corbyn, and the Labour leader’s attitude to nuclear power, a big employer in a constituency which includes the Sellafield plant.

Stoke had been billed as more of a Brexit-focused battle, with the Ukip leader, Paul Nuttall, parachuting himself in as candidate with the hope of removing Labour in an area that voted strongly for leave.

But even facing a pro-remain Labour candidate, Nuttall was well beaten – albeit with a slightly increased vote share. However, again this seemed less to do with Brexit than Labour’s superior local operation, and Nuttall’s various mishaps related to his recollection of the past.

Similarly, while May raced up to Copeland on Friday to hail the victory as showing her party could “deliver for everyone”, any unifying ability she currently has over Brexit seems mainly to do with Labour’s current chaos.

You should also know:

Read these:

In the New Statesman, Tom Nuttall writes that the age-old British tactic of divide and rule in Europe is not going to work for the upcoming Brexit negotiations despite the “hairline cracks” apparent in the EU 27’s apparent unity:

Roiled by one crisis after another, Europe’s governments are determined not to allow Brexit to tear them apart. If they are struggling to manufacture a common vision for the future they will resist common threats ... Under siege from enemies within and without, Europe’s politicians will hardly feel generous if they detect British perfidy across the negotiating table. That is why they will be hypersensitive to any ­attempt to play divide and rule. It may have worked for half a millennium, but it would be dangerous politics today.

In the Financial Times (paywall), Janan Ganesh argues that pro-Europeans must push for change after Britain exits the union because “Brexit is an idea whose only effective rebuttal is its own implementation”:

There is more chance of Britain leaving and then rejoining in stages than there is of Britain never leaving in the first place ... It is a matter of steering the evolution of British laws and institutions towards the EU norm, until the gap between membership and non-membership withers. This is not just possible, it is probable. The best argument against exit was never the steep downside so much as the measly upside. Sovereignty is a dream: the gravitational pull of a unified Europe on our medium-sized nation is too strong.

Tweet of the week:

At the Düsseldorf carnival, a German view of Brexit: