Amber Rudd, the work and pensions secretary, has renewed her call for MPs to have a free vote next week on the amendments intended to rule out a no-deal Brexit. Number 10 has signalled this will not happen. But in an interview for Newsnight, being broadcast tonight, she said:

At the moment there is a lot of change going on. I have called for a free vote for the amendments on Tuesday, and we’ll see what position the government takes.

She also refused to rule out resigning if ordered to vote against the Yvette Cooper amendment intended to allow MPs to block a no-deal Brexit. (See 1.05pm.) Asked if she would be willing to quit the government to vote for the amendment, she replied:

I’m going to stick to trying to persuade the government to allow it to be a free vote. There is a lot taking place and there are a lot of new amendments. We’ll have to wait and see.

In a speech in Davos Philip Hammond, the chancellor, said a no-deal Brexit would amount to a “betrayal”. He said:

In the 2016 referendum a promise was made to the majority who voted for Brexit – that they were voting for a more prosperous future.

Not leaving would be seen as a betrayal of that referendum decision.

But leaving without a deal would undermine our future prosperity, and would equally represent a betrayal of the promises that were made.

And that is why I, having campaigned vigorously to remain, in the referendum have come to believe that the only credible and sustainable solution is for us to leave the European Union.

To honour the referendum decision but to do so in a way that protects our economy in order to allow us to deliver that future prosperity that those voters were promised when they voted to leave the EU.

The only sustainable solution is a negotiated settlement with the EU.

John McDonnell, the shadow chancellor, says, given Theresa May’s refusal to rule out a no-deal Brexit, Hammond should resign. In a statement he said:

The chancellor must now surely consider his position in the government. Philip Hammond’s comments today demonstrate he has acknowledged the damage a no-deal Brexit would do to our economy, jobs and living standards.

If the prime minister fails to listen to his warnings and continues to refuse to take no deal off the table there is no other option, he must resign.

May, like Hammond, has repeatedly said she does not want a no-deal Brexit, but she has refused to explicitly rule it out. She is worried that, if she were to do that, MPs would no longer feel under pressure to back her deal.

Here is the question all Westminster, and half the EU, would like answered. It is from Spartakboro BTL.

Spartakboro

24 January 2019 12:53pm

'Referring to her Brexit discussions with Theresa May yesterday afternoon, Sturgeon said that the prime minister “refused to really listen to any of the concerns we brought”, and reiterated her call for May to pause article 50 and hold a second referendum on EU membership.'

Andrew

Barnier is saying nothing can stop the UK Brexit. May won't budge from my deal or no deal, Corbyn ain't budging from GE and full CU membership and SNP can only shout at windmills in the twilight.

In your considered opinion, at this stage, is there anyway a no deal can be stopped?

Yes, it can - but I think you are right to put the question in these terms. A lot of Westminster commentary is framed around the proposition that a no-deal Brexit would be so unthinkable that it is unthinkable - or at least, very unlikely. There is an assumption that rational actors will always act rationally. But (leaving aside the issue of whether all players in the Brexit drama do qualify as rational actors), history shows us that that is not always the case. World War One would be a classic example, Vietnam another. (That prompted a wonderful book about how some of the cleverest people ever to run a US administration could end up responsible for one of the biggest foreign policy disasters of all time.) That’s why I agree with Sir Ivan Rogers, the most astute of all the Brexit commentators, who said in a lecture (pdf) on Tuesday that “we have reached an impasse and ... the risks are appreciably higher than either the markets or the commentariat believe.”

You’ve got a good summary of the various intractables that make it hard to see how a no-deal Brexit can be avoided before 29 March. So how can it be stopped? In one sense it is quite simple; some of those involved who have put down red lines will have to abandon them. That happens all the time, and it explains why journalists are always on the alert for the slightest hint that a “line” is changing.

But what makes this problematic is that several compromises might be necessary, and some of them are at the outer boundaries of probability.

Here are various things that could happen that would led to a no-deal Brexit on 29 March being stopped, roughly in order of how likely they seem. (Some of them might occur in combination.)

1) May and the EU agree to extend article 50 just to buy more time. Both sides would be reluctant to do this, especially if there were no guarantee that delaying would help resolve the deadlock. But stopping the clock may seem preferable to going over the cliff. However, this does not necessarily avoid no deal. It might just postpone it.

2) Parliament forces May to apply for extra time. This is a variant of 1), but perhaps less likely because, even though MPs will probably vote for the Yvette Cooper amendment next week, it is a bit harder to see that leading to a bill successfully getting through both Houses of Parliament.

3) Mainstream Tories who voted against May’s Brexit deal earlier this month swallow their doubts and support her - panicked by the prospect of a no deal, and perhaps encouraged by some modest concessions from the EU. But there aren’t enough of them so you would also need ...

4) Some Labour MPs start to line up behind May, also horrified by the prospect of what a no-deal Brexit might mean for their constituents.

5) The EU blinks, and agrees to the key Tory Brexiter demand to abandon the backstop - or at least largely abandon it, perhaps in the form of subjecting it to a time limit.

(By now we’re into the highly improbable. From here, it gets even more fanciful.)

6) A fundamental Conservative party split leads to May losing a vote of confidence, and a general election being called. (May could also decide to trigger one herself, although given that many of her candidates would refuse to commit to voting for her deal, it is very, very hard to see why she would.) But this would not necessarily avoid no deal forever, because it could just take us back to a hung parliament.

7) A government - perhaps May’s, or perhaps one that emerges from a confidence vote - agrees to pass legislation for a second referendum, as a means of resolving the impasse. (The chances of MPs voting for a second referendum are a bit higher, but without a government committed to implementing legislation - which would be complicated - a vote alone would count for little.)

8) May strikes a deal with Labour MPs (perhaps Jeremy Corbyn, perhaps leading backbenchers), and comes up with a plan for a softish Brexit acceptable to at least 326 centrist Tory and Labour MPs. A deal with Corbyn would be taking us into government of national unity territory.

So, in short, a no-deal Brexit can be stopped. But it is far from inevitable that it will be ...

And Leo Varadkar, the Irish prime minister, has also been at Davos. As RTE’s Tony Connelly reports, Varadkar said, in the event of a no-deal Brexit, Northern Ireland would have to remain in full regulatory and customs alignment with the EU anyway, to comply with the terms of the Good Friday agreement.

In response, Nigel Dodds, the DUP deputy leader, has accused Varadkar of being wrong and unhelpful. In a statement Dodds said:

We want the 2016 referendum result to be honoured and leave the European Union through a sensible deal which works for every part of the United Kingdom and also our neighbours in the Republic of Ireland.

I reject Leo Varadkar’s analysis. It is not a constructive contribution when we are focused on trying to reach a consensus.

In any case, the Taoiseach’s comments about the Belfast agreement actually ride a coach and horses through that agreement.

Mr Varadkar is evidently and understandably concerned about the impact of a ‘no deal’ on the Republic of Ireland but this is a time to tone down the rhetoric and keep cool heads.

Tim Roache, the GMB general secretary, was the fourth union leader to meet Theresa May to discuss Brexit. He saw her earlier this afternoon, and as he came out he issued this statement. He said:

I’m afraid to say the prime minister today failed to give us the guarantees we need over protecting jobs and rights at work.

The concerns from members and their employers are mounting by the day as the clock runs down, and yet the prime minister is still refusing to take her threat of no deal off the table.

We can’t carry on like this. As this crisis worsens, pretending nothing has changed is simply not good enough.

The current deal doesn’t cut it. It pleases no one. We need a permanent customs union, legally binding commitments to workers’ rights that can’t be ignored or ripped up by a future Tory government and a policy agenda that tackles the reasons people voted to leave in the first place.

I asked for an extension to article 50 but sadly the prime minister did not agree.

Here are some more lines from what Len McCluskey, the Unite general secretary, told reporters after his meeting in Number 10 with Theresa May.

• McCluskey said he urged May to avoid a no-deal Brext at all costs. He also said he thought no British prime minister would adopting that policy. He said:

I can’t conceive any British prime minister taking us out of Europe with a no deal. It would be catastrophic. She’s been told that from all parts.

• He also said May should agree to extend article 50. He said:

I have also made it clear that, in my opinion, if she is serious about negotiating and seeing if there’s a deal that has support in parliament, then there has to be an extension of article 50.

• He said that the thought the plan in the Yvette Cooper bill to extend article 50 for nine months (see 1.05pm) was “a bit long”. A three-month extension would be better, he said. He explained:

We have to give a clear indication that the referendum result, that people are not trying to dismiss it by stealth.

• He said he told May that he hoped she was not just meeting him as a PR stunt. She said:

What I was saying to the prime minister was, ‘Is this just a PR stunt for the media, for you to say that you have consulted with trade unions? Or is this a genuine attempt to see if we can talk about issues that matter to us?’

• He said May’s approach justified Jeremy Corbyn’s decision not to meet her for Brexit talks. He said:

I think Jeremy Corbyn did the correct thing. I think he was vindicated by not coming to the meetings. The SNP, the Liberal Democrats looked rather stupid by going in. In fact, it needed Nicola Sturgeon to step in and save face.

Explaining what it right for him to meet May, but not for Corbyn to meet her, McCluskey said the issues were different; he headed a union, but Corbyn led a political party.

Richard Harrington, the business minister, said this morning he was “delighted” when he read the boss of Airbus branding the UK government’s handling of Brexit a “disgrace”. Speaking to an audience of German industrialists, he said that no deal must be stopped and he was prepared to be sacked for saying so.

This is a disaster for business and business needs to know where it is, and that doesn’t mean, ‘Oh great, two weeks before we are leaving, now we can rule out crashing out.’

I really don’t believe in this idea. I am very happy to be public about it and very happy if the prime minister decides I am not the right person to do the business industry job.

[A no-deal Brexit] would be a total disaster for the economy, I was delighted to read Airbus’s comments this morning because it is telling it like it is.

Harrington, who has previously said that a no-deal Brexit would be “an absolute disaster” and that he would resign if the government opted for one, was speaking at a gathering of German Industry UK at the German industry in London.

He said Brexit was already threatening jobs in the car industry.

I do believe time is of the essence here.

If I could put myself in the head of Ralf Speth [chief executive of Jaguar Land Rover], they must be placing order for parts now; ordering eight to 10 weeks ahead.

It is quite reasonable to expect if they know they can bring them in or not. This is not theory, this is real time.

And here is the formal statement that the TUC general secretary Frances O’Grady issued after her Brexit meeting with Theresa May earlier. (See 11.03am.) O’Grady said:

The prime minister hasn’t given us the guarantees we need on jobs or workers’ rights. Tweaks aren’t enough - we need substantial change to the whole deal.

But even after a catastrophic defeat, her red lines haven’t shifted, and the threat of no deal hasn’t even been taken off the table.

And if she won’t change her position, how can we change ours?

Tony Blair, the former Labour prime minister who is opposed to Brexit and calling for a second referendum, has said that he thinks the chances of a “people’s vote” being held are now higher than 50%. Speaking at Davos, when asked if he stood by a previous statement saying there was a “50/50 chance” of it happening, he replied:

No, I would say it’s probably somewhat increased, but I mean when I said 50% most people would have said that’s ridiculously optimistic.

Speaking to Reuters, Blair said if the country went ahead with Brexit, the choice was “very, very difficult”. There were two options, he said:

A Brexit that’s pointless - staying close to Europe’s rules, becoming a rule taker - or a Brexit that’s painful, if you break out of the European system that we’d been trading in for four and a half decades.

The reason we’ve got this problem in the British parliament is that the real options have dawned on the members of parliament and therefore there’s not really a majority at the moment for any Brexit proposition.

There’s not yet a majority for a second referendum but I think it’s possible there will be.

This is what the Conservative MP Sarah Wollaston said at the press briefing outside the Houses of Parliament by People’s Vote suppoters. (See 10.14am.) She said:

With great regret, we will not be laying [an amendment calling for a second referendum] because at this stage, and until we have the leader of the opposition’s backing, it would would not pass.

And this is what the Labour MP Luciana Berger said:

As things stand, we have just 30 sittings days of parliament until we are due to exit the European Union. There is no consensus across the House of Commons, and there is an urgent need for leadership.

We have seen the worst parliamentary defeat of any government. But the prime minister insists on pursing a dud deal that cannot command the majority support of MPs in the House of Commons ...

Regrettably, the Labour leadership won’t commit to an achievable policy. And yet we know that the majority of Labour voters, supporters and members want a final say on any Brexit deal. At a time when Labour should be championing a people’s vote, the leadership avoids answering that call.

Because the Labour leadership will not back a people’s vote, there will not be a vote on a cross-party people’s vote amendment next week. This is not good enough. Labour should be clearly setting out a different course, not facilitating a job-destroying Brexit.

In an announcement outside the Houses of Parliament, leading supporters of the People’s Vote campaign for a second referendum, the Tory Sarah Wollaston and the Labour MPs Chuka Umunna and Luciana Berger, have announced that they will not be tabling an amendment to the Brexit motion being debated on Tuesday calling for a second referendum. They don’t want to call a vote until they think they have the numbers to win.

David Campbell Bannerman (see 9.40am) is not the only Tory Brexiter to dismiss today’s warning from Airbus about a no-deal Brexit. On the Today programme David Jones, the former Welsh secretary, said he did not think it was likely that the Airbus plant at Broughton in north Wales, that employs 6,000 people, could close. He explained:

Tom Enders has made threats such as this for some time. But he knows that a large proportion of his very loyal workforce in Broughton actually voted to leave the European Union ...

[Enders is] in an industry that is very fortunate in that there are no tariffs imposed on aircraft, and indeed on most aircraft components. So to that extent his industry does not have he problems of disruption that other industries might have.

Certainly, there might be some issue over border checks. But that is something that can be overcome, just as it is overcome at the moment for all those components that Airbus import from other parts of the world than the European Union.

Airbus, which manufacturers aircraft wings in the UK and employs 14,000 people in the country, has said that it could close factories here in the event of a no-deal Brexit. Tom Enders, the company’s chief executive, has spoken out about Brexit before, but this warning may be his starkest yet. In a video message he said:

Please don’t listen to the Brexiteers’ madness which asserts that ‘because we have huge plants here we will not move and we will always be here’. They are wrong.

Of course it is not possible to pick up and move our large UK factories to other parts of the world immediately. However, aerospace is a long-term business and we could be forced to redirect future investments in the event of a no-deal Brexit.

And, make no mistake, there are plenty of countries out there who would love to build the wings for Airbus aircraft.

He also said it was a “disgrace” that the government could not even say yet what was happening.

In a global economy the UK no longer has the capability to go it alone. Major aerospace projects are multinational affairs.

It is a disgrace that, more than two years after the result of the 2016 referendum, businesses are still unable to plan properly for the future.

We, along with many of our peers, have repeatedly called for clarity, but we still have no idea what is really going on here.

My colleague Julia Kollewe has the full story here.

Here is the agenda for the day.

Morning: Theresa May meets the TUC general secretary Frances O’Grady as part of her Brexit cross-party talks. Later May is meeting the Unite general secretary Len McCluskey, the Unison general secretary Dave Prentis, and the GMB general secretary Tim Roache.

9.30am: Stephen Barclay, the Brexit secretary, takes questions in the Commons.

10.30am: Andrea Leadsom, the leader of the Commons, takes business questions in the Commons.

Lunchtime: Philip Hammond, the chancellor, speaks at a CBI event at Davos. My colleague Graeme Wearden will be covering this on his Davos live blog.

As usual, I will also be covering breaking political news as it happens, as well as bringing you the best reaction, comment and analysis from the web, but I expect to be focusing mostly on Brexit. I plan to post a summary at lunchtime and another when I finish, at around 5pm.

You can read all the latest Guardian politics articles here. Here is the Politico Europe round-up of this morning’s political news. And here is the PoliticsHome list of today’s top 10 must-reads.

If you want to follow me or contact me on Twitter, I’m on @AndrewSparrow.

I try to monitor the comments BTL but it is impossible to read them all. If you have a direct question, do include “Andrew” in it somewhere and I’m more likely to find it. I do try to answer questions, and if they are of general interest, I will post the question and reply ATL, although I can’t promise to do this for everyone.

If you want to attract my attention quickly, it is probably better to use Twitter.