Cameron says the new agreement will mean eurozone countries losing powers to an unprecedented degree. Some will have their budgets rewritten for them.
Cameron says talks are underway about how the new group will access the EU institutions. This is unchartered territory, he says.
Cameron defends Britain being a member of the EU. "We are in the EU because we want to be."
He mentions forthcoming EU council of ministers' meetings. Britain will be there, he says.
But Britain is not in the Schengen agreement, and not in the euro, and not in the new bail-out fund.
Cameron says he went to Brussels with one objective: to protect the British national interests.
If he was going to agree a new treaty, there would have to be safeguards, he says. Some said those safeguards were modest. But they were not forthcoming, and so he did not agree to the treaty.
Cameron runs through what happened in more detail.
The eurozone countries agreed on the need for more fiscal discipline. Britain agrees with the need for that.
The question was not whether it would happen; it was how it would happen. There could have been a treaty at the level of all 27 EU member states. Or there could have been an inter-governmental agreement.
Cameron says his demands were modest, reasonable and relevant.
He was not asking for a British opt-out. He was asking for safeguards that would have protected the EU as a whole.
To those who think he was trying to go soft on the banks, "nothing could be further from the truth". He wanted an assurance that Britain could go further than the EU in imposing capital requirements on banks.
The EU treaty is the treaty "of those outside the euro as much as those inside the euro", he says.
Changing the treaty would have changed the nature of the EU. It would have strengthened the eurozone without strengthening the other parts of the EU.
That's why he required safeguards.
I wish those safeguards had been accepted.
But they weren't. "The right answer was no treaty," he says.
This was not an easy thing to do. But it was the right thing to do. ("Not easy, but right" was the theme of Nick Clegg's party conference speech.)
David Cameron is making his statement now. There is plenty of jeering. John Bercow tells MPs to calm down.
David Cameron will be making his statement in about 10 minutes. Before he starts, here's a short reading list about his decision last week to veto a new EU treaty.
• The statement issued by the euro area leaders after the end of the summit last week.
I fear that we will come to rue the fact that the summit was a political disaster and an economic failure for Britain and Europe. What does this mean for British politics? We know where the Tory party now stands. But it does not command a parliamentary majority.
Nick Clegg, the deputy prime minister and leader of the unashamedly pro-European Liberal Democrats, said before the summit that the key aim was to do "everything we can to avoid a great big split in the European Union" because that would be "bad for jobs and growth in this country".
Can Clegg really look his party – or the country – in the eye and say this has not now happened? It is time for him and Liberal Democrats to ask whether this is really what they came into politics for.
• Bagehot on his Economist blog on why he thinks Cameron lost at the EU summit.
That stuff about drama and rows is clearly right. But I fear I do not see where Mr Cameron used his veto.
In my version of the English language, when one member of a club uses his veto, he blocks something from happening. Mr Cameron did not stop France, Germany and the other 15 members of the euro zone from going ahead with what they are proposing. He asked for safeguards for financial services and—as had been well trailed in advance—France and Germany said no. That's not wielding a veto, that's called losing.
All the same, this is a great moment for Britain's relationship with Europe. A generation too late, it demonstrates the power of No. By using that undiplomatic word, and acting on it, Mr Cameron has broken the taboo which has hamstrung all previous British diplomacy.
• Will Hutton in the Observer on why he thinks Cameron made a crucial misjudgment.
For [Cameron], politics is not about statecraft in the pursuit of a national vision that embraces all the British. It is an enjoyable game to be played for a few years, in which the task is to get his set in and look after them and hand the baton on to the next chap who will do the same.
The over-riding preoccupation was to manage his tribe, now in thrall to the worst of ancient Tory instincts that have been so consistently wrong. In no circumstance could he risk having to take a treaty change through the Commons relying on Lib Dem, Labour and a minority of Tory votes, accompanied by an ever-more hysterical insistence that there should be a referendum on Britain's relationship with Europe.
The numbers of Conservative rebels will doubtless wax and wane, but there is now a hard core of at least 45 who are likely to vote against unsuitable EU measures, meaning the Coalition needs some Labour support or help should they want to put through more EU decisions.
The top ranks of the Government are now coming to the conclusion that the break-up of the euro is inevitable.
I understand that Hague, like the Chancellor, now believes this will happen soon.
Osborne told Cabinet colleagues on Monday that the Merkel-Sarkozy plan for greater fiscal discipline within the eurozone was no solution to the current crisis.
Rather, he said, 'it was like standing over a man having a heart attack and telling him that to avoid one in future he should do more exercise and cut down on cholesterol'.
This view that the euro is unlikely to survive is why there are, so far, few worries about Britain being isolated by the eurozone bloc and its allies.
Downing Street have put out a statement saying David Cameron had a "useful" meeting with the King of Bahrain this morning.
Their discussions focussed on the King's plans to implement reforms in the country, following on from the protests earlier this year and the report from the Independent Commission of Inquiry. The prime minister emphasised the importance of strengthening respect for human rights in Bahrain. He urged the King to deliver swiftly on the commitments he has made to implement the recommendations from the Inquiry and to drive forward reform and reconciliation in the country, engaging with the opposition as part of that process. The King welcomed the prime minister's offer of expertise to help with the reform process in Bahrain, particularly to improve the judicial system there.
This afternoon's Commons statement might get lively. According to the BBC's James Landale on Twitter, the Speaker is not taking any risks.
Am told Serjeant at Arms has been asked to draft in extra staff in case Speaker has to "name" MP during EU statement and escort them out
Given the strong possibility that the next election will result in a hung parliament, one of the curiosities in British politics at the moment is why Labour are not making more effort to forge links with the Liberal Democrats (and vice versa). Soon after Ed Miliband became leader, he invited Lib Dems to contribute to Labour policy making. But we never heard any more about that initiative, and it seemed to die a death.
But today Labour is holding its hand out to the Lib Dems again. Douglas Alexander, the shadow foreign secretary, has written an article for the New Statesman blog inviting the Lib Dems to work with Labour to secure a better outcome for Britain in Europe.
Isolation can sometimes be a price worth paying for getting your own way but isolation achieving only defeat is unforgivable. Despite all the talk about protecting the City, the Chancellor was unable, 24 hours afterwards, to point to a single piece of financial regulation that was now not going to be applied to Britain as a result. Instead, we've got up to 26 countries discussing financial services without Britain being at the table, a development John Cridland of the Confederation of British Industry described as "the elephant in the room".The roots of what happened on the night of Thursday 8 December lie deep in Cameron's failure to modernise the Tory party. Just because he puts party interest before the national interest, there is no reason others should do the same. That is why I make a genuine offer to Liberal Democrats to work with us to try to get a better outcome for Britain, between now and when this agreement is likely to be finally tied down in March. Work can and should start immediately both to win back friends and allies and to consider what rules and procedures can avoid Britain's further marginalisation.
My message to Lib Dems would be that, over the next few years, the public will reward politicians who show serious statesmanship, not shrill showmanship in the face of economic events none of us has witnessed before and the outcome of which remains uncertain.
In practical terms, this is largely meaningless. The other 26 EU member states won't be negotiating with the Labour party as they thrash out the details of how their new pact will work. But in party positioning terms, this is certainly intriguing.
And David Davis, the Conservative backbencher, was on the World at One too. He suggested that Tories did not need to worry too much about Nick Clegg criticising David Cameron over Europe because motivated by the need to keep his own party happy.
He has to keep his grandees happy. You've got Paddy Ashdown who is the last person in Britain who thinks the euro is a good idea, and so you've got - he's got some domestic politics to sort out, of course, and I am not remotely surprised by that. He's gone through a 180 degree u-turn, but surprise, surprise - he leads the Lib Dems.
Here's an audioBoo with the full Davis interview.
Lord Brittan, the former Conservative cabinet minister and former EU commissioner, told the World at One that it would be a mistake for Britain to try to stop the eurozone countries using the EU institutions to enforce their new pact. I've taken the quote from PoliticsHome.
It is certainly true is that as one country Britain can stop those institutions being used by the 26 but I think it would be very unwise for us, from our own national point of view to do that because we want to reduce the gulf between us and not widen it further. It would seem when the overwhelming majority of countries reach an agreement and want to use the institutions to implement it, that would be regarded as rather an aggressive act if we said no you can't do that. So, whether we have the right to do it or not, which we very well have, I am saying it would be politically unwise to do that.
The full interview is available on an audioBoo.
Here's a lunchtime summary.
• Senior Liberal Democrats have insisted that the coalition will not break up because of divisions over Europe. "There is no threat to the coalition," said Danny Alexander, the Lib Dem chief secretary to the Treasury. "The coalition was formed to deal with the enormous economic problems that we inherited as a country. That task is the central task of this government." The party splits are likely to be on display later this afternoon when David Cameron makes a statement to the Commons about his decision to veto a new EU treaty at last week's summit. (See 8.58am.)
• Downing Street has signalled that Britain may try to restrict the access that eurozone countries have to the EU institutions. The prime minister's spokesman said that talks on this issue were ongoing and that Britain had "interests" to protect. (See 12.13pm.)
• Vince Cable, the business secretary, has dismissed claims that he might resign because of Cameron's decision. (See 9.43am.)
• A Populus poll for the Times has shown that 57% of voters support Cameron's decision to veto the proposed treaty. Cameron has majority support even though 56% of respondents said that Cameron's decision would reduce British influence in the EU. The full details are on this chart (pdf). (See 10.45am.)
• Jean-Michel Six, the chief Europe economist for Standard and Poor's, the ratings agency, has said that Europe needs "another shock" before EU leaders grasp the full seriousness of the eurozone debt crisis. Last week's deal did not go far enough, Six said.
There is probably another shock required before everyone in Europe reads from the same page, for instance a major German bank experiencing difficulties in the market. Then there would be a recognition that everyone is on the same boat, and even German institutions can be affected by this contagion.Let's not raise expectations too high, there will be more summits. Time is running out and action is needed on both sides of the equation, on the fiscal and monetary side.
• Mazher Mahmood, the former News of the World "fake sheikh" investigations editor, has told the Leveson inquiry that his work led to more than 260 "successful criminal prosecutions". There are more details on our Leveson live blog.
• Sarah Teather, the children's minister, has announced that the government will spend £1.25bn on disadvantaged pupils under the pupil premium policy next year. Stephen Twigg, the shadow education secretary, said in a statement that the pupil premium "does not make up for what independent analysts say are the biggest cuts in education spending since the 1950s".
• The Conservatives have claimed that the Financial Services Authority's report into what went wrong at the Royal Bank of Scotland shows that Labour was partly to blame. "Today's report exposes how Labour share the blame for the regulatory failures that led to the biggest bank bailout in history," said Michael Fallon, the Conservative deputy chairman.
• Vince Cable, the business secretary, has announced the criteria that will be used to decide where the Green Investment Bank will be based.
• Chuka Umunna, the shadow business secretary, has published proposals designed to ensure that small businesses get more access to private investment and to government contracts.
As I mentioned earlier, Nick Clegg is getting a kicking from sections of the press today. (See 10.45am.) Harriet Harman, Labour's deputy leader, has now piled in.
The headlines are shouting Nick Clegg thinks this is a bad deal for Britain, yet he is the Deputy Prime Minister in a Government which has taken this action which is so damaging for Britain in the longer term. Nick Clegg has shown once again he has no bottom line and no principles. His public anger is matched only by his private acquiescence.
Here are the key points from the Number 10 lobby briefing.
• Britain is negotiating with other EU countries about exactly what EU institutions the new group being set up by last week's agreement will be allowed to use. Yesterday, in his interview on the Andrew Marr show, Nick Clegg played down the idea of Britain trying to stop the new group using EU buildings and other EU institutions. "Clearly would be ludicrous for the 26, which is pretty well the whole of the European Union with the exception of only one member state, to completely reinvent or recreate a whole panoply of new institutions," Clegg said. But the prime minister's spokesman would not even confirm that Britain would be happy for the new group to meet in EU buildings. Where else were they expected to meet, I asked. The Brussels Starbucks? The spokesman would only say that these were matters for negotiation.
What was was agreed was a framework. What has yet to be agreed is how that is implemented ... There will be discussions about how that is implemented. We will engage constructively in that discussion ... We have interests in that. Therefore we will be involved in that discussion.
The spokesman said that Britain wanted to make sure that the work of the new group did not "in any way cut across the work of the single market". He seemed to imply - although he never said so explicitly - that Britain was still demanding assurances of the kind demanded by Cameron last week in return for allowing the EU institutions to serve the new eurozone group.
• The spokesman insisted that a new treaty could have been a threat to British national interests. This morning David Miliband challenged the government to explain how the new treaty being discussed last week would have posed a threat to Britain. (See 9.26am.) The prime minister's spokesman said Britain's national interests would have been at risk because the treaty would have created a potential confict of interest within the EU.
[If there was a new treaty] institutions would have to pursue objectives for the 17 [members of the eurozone] and the 27 [members of the EU]. There are potentials there for a conflict of interest ... We would not be discussing any of this at the moment if we thought that the interests of the 27 and the 17 were always aligned.
• Downing Street believes that there is "some uncertainty" about whether the government has the legal power to implement the recommendations of the Vickers report on the future of banking. "There is some legal uncertaintly about whether countries can go further [than EU law proscribes] in certain areas," the spokesman said.
• Downing Street insisted that Nick Clegg was signed up in advance to the possibility of Britain vetoing the proposed new EU treaty. There have been suggestions that Clegg did not agree to a veto. But the prime minister's spokesman said: "It was an agreed negotiating position." Cameron had made it clear that he would reject a new treaty if Britain did not get the safeguards it wanted, the spokesman said.
• Downing Street said protecting the City by maintaining a level playing-field in financial services was still a government objective in EU negotiations.
• The spokesman denied suggestions that Cameron spoke to George Osborne while the negotiations were underway on Thursday night and Friday morning. Cameron spoke to Osborne and Clegg when they were over, the spokesman sia.
• Downing Street brushed aside Alex Salmond's complaints about the way Cameron the summit last week. "Foreign affairs is a reserved matter," the spokesman said.
"That was the longest briefing I've been to without a useable quote," was how one colleague put it to me on the way back from the Downing Street briefing. It was probably a bit better than that, but only marginally. I'll post a summary in a moment.
You can read all today's Guardian politics stories here. And all the politics stories filed yesterday, including some in today's paper, are here.
As for the rest of the papers, they line up on the Cameron veto issue on rather predictable lines. In the Conservative tabloids, Nick Clegg gets a particular pasting. In the Sun he's "Villain Clegg". And in the Daily Mail, it's "Madame Fifi dones her flip-flops again".
Here are two articles that are particularly interesting.
Half of the Liberal Democrat voters at last year's general election (49 per cent) agree with Mr Cameron's decision, as does a greater proportion of Labour voters. This suggests that the two parties will find it hard to gain much public support for their critical stance ...
[Nick Clegg] said the failure to reach agreement in Brussels had been a "setback" but that the priority should be to avoid isolation in Europe, which would be "terrible for this country but which does, sadly, seem to be what more extreme eurosceptics would like to see".
Voters in The Times poll, conducted by Populus, appear more sanguine about the events of Thursday night. Only one in eight (12 per cent) believes that Mr Cameron's veto will not safeguard the City's position as an international financial centre, with 44 per cent saying it will provide the protections he suggests.
Of the half venturing an opinion, slightly more think that it will not weaken prospects of economic recovery (27 per cent) than think it will (24 per cent). The backing for the veto comes even though more than half of those asked (56 per cent) agree that the move will reduce British influence inside the EU.
Even if the Snafu has little prospect of success, there is no reason for David Cameron to commit this country to a project that is intellectually, morally and democratically bankrupt. He was quite right to say that Britain would not participate; and the reason the others are angry with Britain is that the row conceals the real failure of the summit – and that is to come up with a solution for the problems of the euro. The best hope now is for everyone to cool off and look at the things that the citizens of Europe actually want from their institutions. The euro may or may not be saved – though it seems unlikely that it will still exist in exactly its current form a year from now, and the best thing would be if the Greeks (and perhaps others) were allowed an orderly exit from their pain.
I'm off to the Number 10 lobby briefing now. I'll post again after 11.30am.
Earlier I quoted what Danny Alexander, Simon Hughes and David Laws were saying about David Cameron's veto decision this morning. (See 8.58am.) They represent the Lib Dem party establishment.
For a very different view, you should listen to the comment that Jenny Tonge, the former Lib Dem MP who is now a peer, gave to the Today programme for use early this morning (in the 6.30 slot).
This whole coalition thing, we've just been sold a pup, time after time after time. The health service reforms that weren't in anyone's manifesto and weren't in the coalition agreement we've had to swallow and accept, and now this Europe thing. And there's welfare reform, legal aid, tuition fees. We've had one thing after another come at us as a party, and I think at some stage we've got to say "enough is enough". Either we stop this nonsense and we say the coalition cannot go on, or the Conservatives decide to change tack.
Mazher Mahmood, the former News of the World's "fake sheikh" investigations editor, is about to give evidence to the Leveson inquiry. You can follow all the detail on our Leveson live blog.
The most senior British official working in Brussels for the European Union has warned that Britain could end up like "the Channel Islands of the EU" if it does not fully engage with Europe - "formally apart, with lovely pageantry and some economic successes, but following rules and policies made elsewhere". My colleague Nicholas Watt has got all the details on his blog.
I've been focusing on the British politics implications of last week's summit, but the implications for the eurozone may be even more important. EU leaders were supposed to agree a means of resolving the debt crisis, but there's a huge question mark about whether the bazooka they produced will do the job. In the Guardian today David Gow quotes an unnamed EU official as saying that there was surprise the markets did not crash on Friday because the deal was so shaky.
We were quite surprised that the markets reacted as well as they did on Friday. We thought they would really tank and there's still this legal uncertainty hanging over the deal.
For more about what's happening in the eurozone today, do read our business live blog that is covering this. It includes a quote from the ratings agency Moody's, which wasn't impressed by the summit outcome.
The absence of measures to stabiliese credit markets over the short term means that the euro area, and the wider EU, remain prone to further shocks and the cohesion of the euro area under continued threat ... Unless credit market conditions stabilise in the near future, out ratings of all EU sovereigns will need to be revisited. The communique does not change that view, and we continue to expect to complete such a repositioning during the first quarter of 2012.
Here's some more from Cable's interview on Sky. He said that the business community wanted to know that Britain was still fully part of the European Union and that he was "sure that's what the prime minister will say this afternoon". He also claimed that business leaders were not particularly interested in "tribal arguments" between the Lib Dems and the Tories.
What we badly need is complete reassurance that we are fully committed to working in the European Union. Millions of British jobs depend on it.
For some Lib Dems, it is close to breaking point. Business secretary Vince Cable spoke passionately in cabinet last Monday against making the small casino part of the City a vital national interest; why, he asked his colleagues, protect financial engineers and tax-evaders? He was ignored and furious when he learned what had happened. He will speak out aggressively against Cameron's veto; his decision is whether to resign to do so or say so in office, courting his sacking.
But Cable has now denied that. Sky have just broadcast a quick interview with Cable and this is what he said when he was asked if this was a resigning matter.
No, no. I'm just getting on with my job, as I always do.
We haven't been hearing a great deal from the Labour party's Blairite wing recently, but David Cameron's decision to deploy the veto at the EU summit at the weekend inspired them to speak out. At the weekend Jonathan Powell, Tony Blair's former chief of staff, described it as "the worst foreign policy disaster in my adult lifetime". In an article in the Guardian today, Lord Mandelson says Cameron may have put Britain's membership of the EU in jeopardy. And now David Miliband, the former foreign secretary, has intervened.
He's been giving interviews on the Today programme and on Radio 5 Live. Here are the key points. I've taken the quotes from PoliticsHome.
• Miliband accused Cameron of making a major historic error.
Remember, 55 years ago, 56 years ago, Anthony Eden walked away from the founding of the European Union and we paid the price for years. This has been an Anthony Eden moment for David Cameron and I think that if you look back to what the prime minister was warning of just two months ago, namely the danger of a caucus of 17 countries bossing the rest of the European Union, he's engineered a situation where it's 26 countries together and Britain on its own without a say for the first time since we joined the European Union.
• He claimed the veto would achieve nothing.
This is the first veto in history not to stop something. The plans are going right ahead, it was a phantom veto against a phantom threat, David Cameron didn't actually stop anything because the other 26 are going on and, of course, the provisions of the treaty would not have weakened our rights and freedoms one iota. I've listened to a few of the ministerial interviews over the weekend. Not a single minister in a single interview has pointed to a single clause in this treaty that would have weakened our rights and freedoms under the, for example, financial transaction tax.
• He said losing influence in this way was "very dangerous".
People waking up in Washington or Moscow or Beijing this morning are going to be looking at a map of Europe and saying, if we want to understand who are the power brokers in Europe, there's one country we know who is not going to be making the decisions, and that's Britain. And that's very dangerous for us.
Three senior Liberal Democrats, Danny Alexander, the chief secretary to the Treasury, Simon Hughes, the deputy leader, and David Laws, the former chief secretary to the Treasury, have all been giving interviews this morning about the EU veto crisis. Generally, they have been supporting the thrust of what Nick Clegg yesterday said about David Cameron's decision to use the veto, but they've been using relatively emollient language and they've been trying to play down the longterm implications.
There are four messages that have been coming out. I've taken the quotes from PoliticsHome.
1. The coalition will survive.
This is from Alexander.
This doesn't threaten the coalition. The Coalition was formed, two parties coming together in the national interest, to deal with the fundamental economic challenges that we face as a country and to deliver a programme of reform. Of course, you have two parties with different views on a range of subjects.
And this is from Hughes.
There is no risk to the coalition. We came to an agreement in the national interest, Liberal Democrats and Tories, not natural allies, we came t an agreement because we knew the country needed us to sort out the economy, that's why we did so. We are committed to that and it's a five-year plan.
2. Cameron had to use the veto because of the influence of backbench Conservative Eurosceptics.
This is from Alexander.
David Cameron had a very difficult hand to play, in terms of both real intransigence from France and Germany in the discussions and the clear need to bring something back to the House of Commons to show his own supporters.
And this is from Hughes.
[The coalition agreement] says very explicitly that we will be constructive about Europe and that means that we will have to face down the people from the Tory back benches who believe that being constructive about Europe is the wrong thing to do.
3. The French were also partly to blame.
Alexander talked about "real intransigence from France and Germany". But the strongest criticism of France came from Laws.
I think it was widely discussed that France clearly had an agenda to marginalise the United Kingdom, that they've been angered by the sense that the UK has been outside the euro and has been commenting on the other problems on other eurozone nations. There has been a long term French desire to try to concentrate leadership of the European Union and the eurozone in Paris and Germany. And it appears they didn't wish to find an agreement with the United Kingdom but sought to marginalise us.
4. The government needs to re-engage with Europe.
This is from Alexander.
I think it is so important that we look at how we act as a government now so that this setback does not become permanent isolation.
And this is from Hughes.
We will have to face down the people from the Tory back benches who believe that being constructive about Europe is the wrong thing to do and we have to show that we are going to be a secure and positive player in the European Union. If not, we are at risk and the recovery of the economies of Europe is at risk.
This seems to be the "official" Lib Dem position this morning. Other Lib Dems are being more outspoken.
There are two points to make about this. First, Alexander and others assume that there is a gulf between Cameron and his Eurosceptic backbenchers. But is that just wishful thinking? Perhaps he really agrees with them. And, second, although the Lib Dems are very keen to re-engage with Europe, we don't know whether their Conservative coalition colleagues feel the same way.
Never mind a week - 72 hours can be an eternity in politics. I was last writing this blog on Thursday afternoon, when David Cameron was about to set off for the EU summit in Brussels. Before he left, he said he would veto a deal if it were not in Britain's interests. I reported it in my afternoon summary, but it seemed like standard pre-summit rhetoric and I left the office expecting the summit to produce a conventional European council fudge. But, of course, it didn't and three days later Westminster is still trying to absorb a decision with profound implications for 1) Britain's relationship with the EU and 2) the future of the coalition.
I'll be largely focusing on this all day. Cameron is making a statement in the Commons at 3.30pm. Prime ministers always make Commons statements after EU summits and normally they're tedious. But this will be a major parliamentary event because we'll hear from dozens of MPs and, by the time it's over, we should get a better sense of quite how much damage Cameron's veto has done to his coalition with the Liberal Democrats.
But there are some other items in the diary today. Here's a full list.
9.30am: Ed Milband and Chuka Umunna, the shadow business secretary, launch the interim report from Labour's small business taskforce at an event in Birmingham. As Jill Treanor reports in the Guardian, Umunna is going to propose job-creation ideas deas used by US president Dwight Eisenhower in the 1950s.
10am: The Leveson inquiry resumes. Neville Thurlbeck, the former News of the World chief reporter, Mazher Mahmood, the former NoW investigations editor, and Neil Wallis, the former NoW executive editor, are giving evidence.
2.15pm: Viscount Rothermere, the Daily Mail chairman, gives evidence to the joint committee on privacy and injunctions Joint Committee. James Harding, editor of the Times, and Peter Wright, editor of the Mail on Sunday, are also giving evidence.
3.30pm: David Cameron makes a statement in the Commons about last week's EU summit. He will face questions from Ed Milband and other MPs about the implications of his decision to veto a new treaty.
There's also a London policy conference, with speeches from Boris Johnson and Ken Livingstone.
As usual, I'll be covering all 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 1pm and an afternoon one after Cameron's statement is over.
If you want to follow me on Twitter, I'm on @AndrewSparrow.