when we know that differentiated settle m e nt when we know that differentiated settlement can be delivered? why does the prime minister in the face of the legitimate demands of the scottish government and the scottish parliament? well, you know, the prime minister can shake her head, but it is a matter of fact, reality. show some respect to the devolved institutions. the price... well, you can bray and shout and you can talk about it being dreadful, but why was the scottish government not consulted just as gibraltar waters, but now the prime minister went to cabinet yesterday? the price scotla nd cabinet yesterday? the price scotland would be forced to pay is far too high of lost jobs, scotland would be forced to pay is far too high of lostjobs, household income slashed and an nhs under threat. now was a time to get realistic and put sensible options back on the table, such as remaining in the single market. mr speaker, the only credible compromise, is the

one the snp has consistently made the case for. this deal is dead in the case for. this deal is dead in the water. it has been clear that the water. it has been clear that the prime minister must go back to brussels and extend article with the, and tell brussels that we must remain in the single market and the customs union. anything else, mr speaker will lead to economic chaos and crisis. prime minister, do the right thing, and we will work with you. laughter stop the clock and go back to brussels. prime minister. can i pick up brussels. prime minister. can i pick up two key points? he made reference to the scottish nhs being under threat. in fact it depends on the scottish government, the snp government determining the money... it is no good him pointing his

finger at me. we ensure that, in the nhs settlement, the prioritise settle m e nt nhs settlement, the prioritise settlement means more money comes to scotland. it is scotland's choice not to spend it all on their nhs. that is an snp decision. order, order, i protected the right honourable gentleman quite properly when he was being brave act in an unseemly manner but having answered the question, let me say to snp members, they must hear the reply of the prime minister with courtesy. don't worry, everybody will get the chance, but the responses of the prime minister must be heard, with basic courtesy and respect. prime minister. thank you, mr speaker. northern ireland does not stay in the single market. what is within the single market. what is within the document is that in order to ensure the bridging this trade across the border between northern

ireland and ireland, northern ireland and ireland, northern ireland will be meeting those regulations specifically in the good spark of the agreement —— the goods park, but not staying in the single market and he talks about scotland being given the same treatment as northern ireland, northern ireland has a particular set of circumstances. it is the early part of the united kingdom that would have a land border with the country thatis have a land border with the country that is continuing as a member of the european union, and that is why, together with our commitments in the belfast agreement, northern ireland is dealt with separately into withdrawal agreement and then, finally, he complained, much of his statement was a complaint that scotla nd statement was a complaint that scotland was not specifically mentioned in these documents. scotla nd mentioned in these documents. scotland is not specifically mentioned. scotland is a part of the united kingdom. cheering mr iain duncan smith. can i say that

i have always wished well to my right honourable friend and my question is in this light. i have deep misgivings on reading much of this overnight. there is a real issue with the way that we will be treated with the backstop. and i say to her, that when you read this you realise that we are locking ourselves into an arrangement from which we seem unable to have the sovereign right to withdraw. that seems to me to be the biggest single issue, which strips away the one thing that we said when we want to devote, when we were living that we took back control, so can i say to my right honourable friend, my concern is that we had the sovereign right when he wanted, to leave the un, to leave nato, when the what, to leave the eu, but we do not have the sovereign right to leave this arrangement. prime minister. my

right honourable friend says the references to the backstop turei some difficult issues and i fully accept that they do, and i fully accept that they do, and i fully accept that they do, and i fully accept that across the house there are some concerns in relation to the backstop and indeed i share some of those concerns. these have not been easy decisions to take. it has been necessary as i explained and it would be necessary in any deal we struck for our future partnership with the eu, to agree a withdrawal agreement, and it has been cleared, and he wanted to commit to ensure that we deliver no hard border between northern ireland and ireland, it has been clear that that withdrawal agreement needed to include this insurance policy. if i may say to my right honourable friend, first, he talks about being held in the backstop, the backstop is not necessarily what would happen, because we want to ensure that the future relationship is in

place before the backstop is necessary. secondly, it would be a choice if we were to go in that circumstance, whether it was a temporary, interim period needed before the future relationship came into place, we would be able to express into place, we would be able to ex press a into place, we would be able to express a preference between the backstop and the implementation period, there are pros and cons on both sides of the argument and it would be honourable members who would be honourable members who would have a belief that one is better than the other. there is a mechanism for coming out of, there was a mechanism that does, it is right, it requires mutual consent, for both sides to agree that is, i do not make any bones about that, but it does in a ball that backstop to be replaced in a number of circumstances, firstly, of course, crucially if the future relationship supersedes it. we will not be able to go into the

future relationship and we come out of this interim period. the prime minister rightly asserts that there are two alternatives to her plan, no deal and no brexit. the government is considering investing in contingency planning for no deal, but what contingency planning is she doing for no brexit, including advising that advise —— article 50 will be withdrawn. and that the palace may instruct her to carry out on the people's vote. he asks me

what plans we are making for no brexit and we are making no plans for no brexit. because this government is going to deliver on the vote of the british people. government is going to deliver on the vote of the british peoplem we took the best part of £39 billion over the next couple of years and spent on public services and tax cuts, wouldn't it be a wonderful boost in the economy and the public mood, and wouldn't that be a better way of spending the money.... mood, and wouldn't that be a better way of spending the money. . .. order the right honourable gentleman has the right honourable gentleman has the right to be heard without being shouted down. i invite the right honourable gentleman to begin his question again and deliver it in full. i was saying, wouldn't it be a wonderful boost to our economy and public services if we spend that money on ourselves rather than on 21 months of delay, massive business uncertainty and something which would sour the political and public

mood for the whole time period. as i said ata mood for the whole time period. as i said at a very early stage of these negotiations, the united kingdom is a country which meets its legal obligations. that says a great deal about the sort of country that we are. there are legal —— legal obligations. as i said statement, the sum of money is less than the european propose we would be required to pay as part of the settlement. i remain firmly of the view that this is a country that should ensure we continue to meet oui’ should ensure we continue to meet our legal obligations, and we will do so. i could today stand and take the prime minister through the list of promises and pledges that she made to this house, and to us, privately, about the future of northern ireland and the future relationship with the eu. but i fear it would be a waste of time, since

she clearly does not listen. can i say today that this house now has a clear choice and every member in it, this house has been left in a position where the choice is objection to the rules and laws of others who may not have our interests at heart and for northern ireland and our precious union, five of those who have resigned today have all talked about the threat to the integrity of the union, and i congratulate them and praise them for what they have said and done and their strong actions. and 39 billion has just been spared for nothing. the choice is clear. we stand up in the united kingdom, the whole of the united kingdom, the integrity of the united kingdom, the integrity of the united kingdom, the integrity of the united kingdom or we vote for a vassal state. that is the choice. cani

vassal state. that is the choice. can i say... i will respond to the right honourable gentleman. he is right, he and i have had many discussions on the issue and i hope we will continue to have many discussions on this issue. we have been ensuring throughout the negotiations that the issue of the board and in northern ireland has been one of the key issues we have been one of the key issues we have been addressing and he refers to the commitments i made in terms of northern ireland and the future relationship and those commitments remain absolutely. we are looking to ensure that we have that frictionless trade across borders that both will enable not only us to deliver on the commitment to northern ireland but also enable us to make sure we have the frictionless trade between the uk and european union and the rest of the european union as well. i believe there are many packed specs of the deal we have agreed that actually ensure that we are preserving the integrity of the united kingdom. there has been a

significant focus on the question of the backstop. the backstop is something which neither side would wish to see exercise. there are and indeedin wish to see exercise. there are and indeed in the circumstances as i have said where there needs to be a period before the future relationship is introduced, there are alternative routes that can be taken. but are alternative routes that can be ta ken. but it's are alternative routes that can be taken. but it's the right honourable gentleman says to me that he is concerned that we have not considered northern ireland through this process, i am grateful to him that he has said that, because i have remained committed to delivering on two things northern ireland. no hard border between northern ireland and ireland. for us to be able to continue to maintain and respond to the obligations under the belfast agreement. and make sure we protect the integrity of the

united kingdom. nobody, but nobody, can doubt the prime minister's absolute commitment and dedication to doing her duty and trying to deliver as a result of the eu referendum. the harsh, cruel truth is that this is not the promised deal. the reason why the people of this country are so fed up is because they have been made so many promises none of which have been delivered upon because they can't be delivered upon because they can't be delivered upon. i agree with the prime minister, we face three choices, we either accept this agreement and i respectfully suggest there is now no majority for it, or we have no deal, which would be profoundly irresponsible and catastrophic for our country, or we have no brexit. we remain in the european union. the best deal that we have with the european union. and

on that basis, would she at least today to undertake not to rule out taking this back to the british people and having a people's vote? i'm afraid on that particular issue i will disappoint my right honourable friend. i am not going to change the position i have taken in this house and indeed taken more widely. i believe that it is the duty of the members of this parliament to make sure we deliver on the choice that was made by the british people, a choice, so that means we will not be taking the option of staying in the european union but we will leave the european union but we will leave the european union and that will happen on the 29th the prime minister has once again told the house we will be leaving the customs union. but the truth is

we will remain in the customs union and in the backstop arrangement which can only be ended with the agreement of the eu, and the truth is the only way you can protectjobs and investment and the open border in northern ireland in the long term is to remain in it. will the prime minister looked the british people in the eye and admit that remaining ina in the eye and admit that remaining in a customs union is in our national economic interests. because without it, we will be poorer as a country. what is in our national interest is ensuring we continue to have a good trading partnership with the european union once we have left. that is why we have put forward a proposal reflected in the outline political declaration for a free—trade area in goods and why we have put forward a proposal that would ensure the frictionless trade of goods across the border. the right honourable gentleman and i disagree. a customs union is not the only way to ensure we have a good

trading relationship with the eu and we put forward a proposal in the outline declaration to do that while ensuring that week were able to take advantage of the independent trade policy. these 585 pages are a testa m e nt to policy. these 585 pages are a testament to broken promises, i'll negotiations and abject capitulation to the eu. will my right honourable friend understand that they represent a list of failures on northern ireland, ecj issues, indefinite extension of time, customs, full independence of trade from the fisheries, and above all, on our truly leaving the eu, because they will control our laws and there have been furthermore some serious breaches of ministerial responsibilities, the ministerial code and collective responsibility. may i say to my honourable friend

that what we are looking at here is a withdrawal agreement which determines the withdrawal of the united kingdom from the european union and the declaration which identifies the scope and structure of our future relationship. identifies the scope and structure of ourfuture relationship. our future relationship is one that will not see the european union controlling our laws because there will be, in those areas where we choose to align with the european union, it will be for this parliament to decide that and that will be a decision therefore taken by the united kingdom. there will not be the european court ofjustice jurisdiction in the united kingdom and that is what we have negotiated in the outline positional declaration for the future relationship. but i recognise that my honourable friend has —— is one of the members of this house who has

campaigned on this issue probably since the day, maybe even before he came into this house and has continued to campaign on this issue with a passion. and i recognise the concerns that he has he has expressed. as prime minister and as a government, it is our duty to ensure that we put together that both respects the vote of the british people and does in the ways that i have said, and it ends free movement also, but does so in a way that protects jobs. that is why i believe it is important not only that we take back control in the areas mentioned, but that we maintaina good areas mentioned, but that we maintain a good trading relationship with the european union as well as having good trading relationships elsewhere. that is in our economic interest, national interest and that is what we will ever. —— deliver. the political declaration includes the passenger name record and fingerprint database but makes no

reference to the crucial criminal database which we check 500 million times a year, or to a replica european arrest warrant at a time when cross—border crime and security threats are at their highest ever level. the prime minister knows that these measures save lives, stop criminals and stop terrorists, so how can she of all people say with her head and heart that this public safety downgrade is in the national interest? first of all, there is reference to us agreeing expeditious, swift and effective arrangements to enable the uk and member states to extradite suspected unconvicted persons. effectively and expeditiously. that will be a part of exactly the measure, the instrument used will be part of the further negotiations taking place. she is right it is important. there

are two further areas of exchange of information which i am home secretary believe are important, and those will be matters that will be taken those will be matters that will be ta ken forward those will be matters that will be taken forward with the european union in further negotiations.” greatly respect the prime minister's effo rts greatly respect the prime minister's efforts in seeking to achieve an agreement. i don't believe this is a good dealfor britain's agreement. i don't believe this is a good deal for britain's long—term future and she recognises she has had to make unpalatable choices. there are clearly free choices ahead of the country in reality and they are crucial choices, especially for young people who will have to live with those choices for the longest. the prime minister said this is in the national interest. so why not allow people in our nation to have their say now. if it was good enough before, why isn't it good enough now? can i say to my right honourable friend and indeed she has

already raised this issue as have members on the opposite benches. this house chose to ask the people of the united kingdom whether they wished to remain in the european union or leave the european union and there was an overwhelming vote in parliament to do that. there was an overwhelming vote in parliament to do that. it was about six against one, so anybody who says it was not overwhelming is wrong. the british people exercise their vote and they exercised their voting numbers we have never seen their —— before. the result of the vote was that we should leave the european union. and it has always been my view, as i have seen in other european issues, other countries, other member states of the european union, taking matters back to their populace, having a referendum, the vote has come out against what the european union wanted and effectively there

has been a second vote, a sort of go back and think again vote. i don't think it's right that we should do that in this country. we gave people the cloister —— choice and we should deliver on the decision they took. it's quite clear we have been going for about an hour now and not a single member has supported the plans at the prime minister has set out, so it's quite clear that she cannot command the house of commons on these proposals. in fact, i'm almost tempted to ask if the honourable members opposite would put their hands up if they actually do support the prime minister on this set of proposals. not one. not one. she says that remaining in the european union is an option. how can the british people fulfil that choice if that is what they choose?

i apologise, but i didn't quite here the point. i think the right honourable member said staying in the european union was an option. i said there was a risk of no brexit at all. i said there was a risk of no brexit at all. but what the government is determined to do is to deliver on the vote the british people took to leave the european union. thank you, mr speaker. my right honourable friend, and she is unquestionably honourable, said that we would leave the customs union. this says otherwise. she said she would maintain the integrity of the european union. the whole protocol says otherwise. my right honourable friend said that we would be out of the jurisdiction

friend said that we would be out of thejurisdiction of friend said that we would be out of the jurisdiction of the european court ofjustice. article hundred and 7a says otherwise. as what my rollerball —— honourable friend says and does no longer match, should i not right to the member for altrincham and sale west? —— write. cani can i say to my honourable friend we will indeed, and he has referred to the articles relating to the protocols in the withdrawal agreement, and i have been clear that difficult choices have had to be made in that protocol, and those choices have been made because i strongly and firmly believe that it is important that we ensure there is no hard border between ireland and

northern ireland. as i have said before, and my honourable friend has heard me say it before, it is not only our intention but we will be working to ensure that that protocol does not need to be put into place. what we are negotiating alongside that withdrawal agreement is not something that will be of a temporary nature. but what will be a lasting future relationship with the european union which will last for decades to come. so in that future relationship we will no longer be a member of the customs union, we will no longer be a member of the single market. an end to free movement will have been delivered. the integrity of the united kingdom will have been maintained. thejurisdiction of of the united kingdom will have been maintained. the jurisdiction of the european court of justice maintained. the jurisdiction of the european court ofjustice in the united kingdom will end. and we will come out of the common agricultural policy and the common fisheries policy. as i ask my honourable

friend to consider the nature of the future relationship that we will be delivering with the european union, which does indeed deliver on the commitments that i have made. with the northern ireland potentially swimming in of the pool, can she confirmed based on the british government's own logic no economic border between arise should in my country should we decide to crawl down to them. can i say to the honourable gentleman that we are conscious, as we look at the proposals, for the trading relationship between the united kingdom and european union and are conscious of the significant trade between ireland and wales and the importance it has for the welsh ports, if you look at the future relationship we have made a proposal for that frictionless trade which would protect the business of the welsh ports and make sure we have as

pa rt welsh ports and make sure we have as part of the good trading relationship for the future. may i put my right honourable friend that the majority in the country, in this parliament and in this party except the result of the referendum and we backin the result of the referendum and we back in trying to get the sovereignty she has argued for. the prospects of prosperity, security and a fruitful partnership across the channel, the north sea on the world and the alternatives if we don't go through with this are the probability of crashing out and the possibility of a government led by the leader of the opposition. neither of which should be an alternative. i thank my honourable friend. i believe, as i think he does, that it is important for us to move forward not only in delivering on the vote but ensuring we do so in a way that protects our prosperity and people's jobs and

a way that protects our prosperity and people'sjobs and livelihoods for the future. but more than that there are significant opportunities in this country once we leave the european union, with those further trading relationships around the rest of the world, but also keeping a good trading relationship with our partners in the eu. will the prime minister now recognise that she made a catastrophic error when she decided to kowtow to the fantasy extremist beliefs of the brexit supporters in her own party, instead of bringing the country together, their views are impossible to actually bring about, and they are now openly plotting against her as she has tried to do her best in this negotiation. surely she now needs to listen to the fact that there is no majority in this house for the

botched deal she has brought back. think again and see whether in this house there can be a consensual way forward which leaves her extremists out in the cold where they belong.” say to the honourable lady that i have kowtowed to know one. the instruction i take is the instruction i take is the instruction that was given to every member of this house by the british people in the referendum in 2016.m may surprise the house, but i agree with my honourable friend, prime minister, the whole house accepts that you have done your best, but the labour party have made plain today that they will vote against this day. the snp will vote against

this day. the snp will vote against this deal. the liberals will vote against it. the dup will vote against it. the dup will vote against it. the dup will vote against it. our key ally in this place will vote against it. over 80 tory backbenchers, well, it's 80 fonau, and it's going up by the hour, will vote against it —— 84 now. it is therefore mathematically impossible to get this deal through the house of commons. the stark reality, prime minister, is that it was dead on arrival at saint tommy's before you stood up. so i plead with you, i plead with you to accept the political reality of the situation you now face. cani can i say to the honourable gentleman, i respect the fact he obviously holds very clear views on theissue obviously holds very clear views on

the issue of our membership of the european union and the sort of relationship we should have with the european union thereafter. we will go forward with the final negotiations towards that european council meeting on the 25th of november, and when a deal is brought back a bill before members of this house not just back a bill before members of this house notjust to look back a bill before members of this house not just to look at the details to consider the votes of the british people, to consider our duty to deliver on the vote of the british people. this is the deal that has been negotiated with the european union. we have to finalise it and vote will come when we have a meaningful vote and it will be for members of this house to determine how they wish to vote at that time and to remember when they cast their vote the importance of ensuring we deliver on the vote of the british people. the prime minister will be aware that the main financial backer of brexit, mr arron banks, is under criminal investigation because of

serious doubts about the true source of the money he spent on the leave campaign. did the prime minister, when she was home secretary in 2016, declined a request from the security services for mr banks to be investigated? of course we do not comment on this house on individual criminal investigations that take place. thank you, mr speaker. there are many ironies in this whole brexit process and one of them is that we just heard colleagues on these benches will use a parliamentary vote which 11 of us voted for last december and received a torrent of abuse, accusations of treachery and betrayal, threats of deselection. but as we have heard so many times, we are. i want to pay tribute to the fact the prime minister did get agreement in cabinet and minister did get agreement in cabinetand can minister did get agreement in cabinet and can she reassure us that

regardless of how many ministerial resignations there are between now and the vote, the agreement will come to parliament and parliament will have its say and she is clear that voting for that agreement is in the national interest?” that voting for that agreement is in the national interest? i can give my right honourable friend the assurance that obviously we have the step of the european union and council and finalising the deal, but the deal will indeed be brought to parliament and as i suggested earlier it will be for every member of this house to determine their vote in the national interest. the prime minister has carried out her mission with no small sense of duty, but it has been a failure and it has turned out to be a humiliation. this was sold to the people as taking back control, but the promises of the right—wing nationalists who drove this have been shown to have turned to dust. instead we are being asked to sign up to control vast

swathes of our economy with no say over them and paying tens of billions for the privilege. is it not the case that far from taking back control, this is the biggest volu nta ry back control, this is the biggest voluntary surrender of sovereignty in living memory and it's time to think again? my answer to his question is no, and if we look at the situation, he refers to the 39 billion which was the financial settle m e nt billion which was the financial settlement in the withdrawal agreement, which is part of the overall package of the withdrawal agreement in the future relationship, and the future relationship, and the future relationship we are negotiating with the european union is designed to deliver on exactly the issues that mattered to the british people when they voted for brexit. as i have said repeatedly, nothing is agreed

until everything is agreed. this act stop is completely intolerable and i feel confident that even in the unlikely event that legislation for it reaches this house, it will be ferociously opposed. will my right honourable friend therefore accept this deal could be the choice by the government to have no deal imposed upon it at the last minute and will she therefore trigger the implementation of no deal contingencies now? i say to my honourable friend that as i indicated earlier i think in response to a previous question, we will be continuing the no deal preparations because i'm conscious we have further stages to go in relation to this process, the european council and of course bringing this matter back to this house. as he has recognised, it is also the legislation that has to go through. as i said earlier, recognising we have that european council and meaningful vote to take

place in this house, we will be continuing our no deal preparations. whilst it might be tempting to watch them much vaunted tory brexit festival, this is deeply serious stuff. the prime minister knows her treasury's own analysis means every single one of her plans means people losing theirjobs, so will she look at the plan which means inc losing the least number of jobs, at the plan which means inc losing the least number ofjobs, the least damaging and make, unlike her plan, when support across this house and thatis when support across this house and that is to remain part of the customs union and the single market? we will believing the customs union and the single market. whether we voted remain or title, we know that millions of people voted for brexit because they are anxious about their

futures, their children and families. away from the westminster bubble, we must remember to consider these vast communities when we consider the outcomes today and we know that it is no deal that will be most damaging to them. and i asked the prime minister what the response has been from the business councils she has set up, those major employers in the country, that will protect those jobs? can i thank my right honourable friend for focusing people's sites on people outside of chamber because they are the people we must consider when we are looking at our decisions in relation to this deal when it comes forward. can i say there have been quite a number of q u otes say there have been quite a number of quotes that have come from industry about the deal and about the fact that for example it delivers a clear path ahead that business so desperately needs, that it brings with it some certainty,

the federation of small businesses, it brings with it some certainty that our small businesses have craved. business out earn has been looking for the certainty that the deal will bring and they have also been concerned that we focused on that free trade area and on that frictionless trade across borders which is exactly what this government has done. can the prime minister guarantee to the house that at the end of march we will continue to have frictionless supply chains and that the end of this process we will be in control of our borders and will have brought back all of thejudicial powers we and will have brought back all of the judicial powers we have surrendered and we will be free from the european court ofjurisdiction? cani the european court ofjurisdiction? can i say that the future relationship we are negotiating with the european union absolutely delivers on the points he made about no jurisdiction delivers on the points he made about nojurisdiction of the delivers on the points he made about no jurisdiction of the european court ofjustice, no jurisdiction of the european court of justice, taking no jurisdiction of the european court ofjustice, taking back

control of our borders, so free movement is ended. we have also based the concept of the free trade area on the need that frictionless trade in goods to ensure people whose jobs trade in goods to ensure people whosejobs depend on trade in goods to ensure people whose jobs depend on those supply chains do not see those jobs go but we are not only able to retain those jobs but with other trade agreements we are able to bring forward once we are outside the eu, we can enhance the economy and create more jobs are outside the eu, we can enhance the economy and create morejobs in this country. may i congratulate the prime minister on her exceptional effo rts prime minister on her exceptional efforts to honour the result of the referendum and to achieve a deal with the european union under the most difficult and demanding circumstances, and will she elaborate on the scale and breadth of the future partnerships agreed on security and defence? i'm happy to do that. there are to areas in relation to security, one is internal security on which i have

a nswered internal security on which i have answered a number of questions where we intend to maintain co—operation ina number of we intend to maintain co—operation in a number of areas where we are currently working closely with our european partners, the other is in external security and defence and we will have obviously independent foreign policy, it will be for our decisions, but what we have negotiated and is set out is an ability for the uk, where it makes sense to do so, to work with our european partners on matters of security and defence and on issues like the imposition of sanctions where it makes sense for those sanctions actually to be europe wider than the european union and the uk to be part of that. we will cooperate with our partners in the european union. that is what retains our independence but also ensures we are able to act at all times in the best interests of the uk and in the best interests of the uk and in the best interests of maintaining our security and defence. the prime

minister knows her deal is dead, she knows no—deal would be a disaster so we risk chaos, job losses and environmental rules torn up, the nhs in crisis. that was never the will of the people. this isn't a parlour game, it is real people's lives and those risks can only be addressed if we put aside party politics so i appeal to her again, why will she not give the people of this country a vote on where this goes next?” could refer to the honourable lady to a nswers could refer to the honourable lady to answers i have given earlier but let me repeat the answer i have given earlier which is that this parliament gave the people of vote, the people voted to leave and we will deliver on the people's vote. with respect to my honourable friend for north—east somerset, i believe theseissues for north—east somerset, i believe these issues are so complex that one

should not deal with them on a personal basis, but my question is this and will she help me in my loyalty. . . this and will she help me in my loyalty... what if the brexit secretary is right, what if his resignation letter is correct, that we are likely or possibly going to be locked permanently in a backstop arrangement. what if therefore she loses this vote in parliament which is very likely? and she promised me that whatever happens in this vote, she will deliver brexit at the end of march? can i say to my honourable friend, first of all that we will be leaving the european union on the 29th of march 2019 and that is a set date and i am determined we will deliver on that. whatever happens in between. in relation to this

question of whether or not were we to be in the backstop, and as i have said, the backstop is not an arrangement that either side actually wants to see being operated, that it was no more than a temporary construct. there are various aspects to this. i will draw his attention to one or two of those. first of all, it is not possible under article 50, under the legal basis of article 50 under which this withdrawal agreement is set, for it to set a permanent relationship for the future and that is explicitly referred to within the withdrawal agreement, and that is inherent in the operation of article 50 legal base. i would also say to my honourable friend that one of the things i have got removed from this protocol is the idea that was there at one stage that if we have moved on to the future relationship and the british government chose to change that relationship, that the backstop could be reinserted. it

cannot be. once it is superseded, it cannot be. once it is superseded, it cannot be. once it is superseded, it cannot be revived. can i congratulate the prime minister. she has proven yet again you cannot square away all. can she say hand on heart whether she believes what she has negotiated is the —— better than the deal we have now?” has negotiated is the —— better than the dealwe have now? i firmly believe this country's best days are ahead of us. we will get a good deal with the european union and take advantage of our independence outside the european union with our trade deals around the rest of the world. my own constituency like the rest of the country is deeply divided today. does my right honourable friend agreed there was a lwa ys honourable friend agreed there was always going to come a difficult moment when the theory of perfect brexit met the cold reality of hard choices and compromise, and does she

agree with me this is not a moment to walk away from our responsibilities to govern and provide this country with leadership at this difficult time? yes, i do agree. this is a complex negotiation, it does require difficult choices to be made, and the challenge for all of us in this house is to make those choices not according to what we wish the world could be like but to the reality of the world that we see and to make those choices pragmatically in the interests of the british people. the prime minister insists this deal is in the national interest, so specifically on the economy the agreement will ensure we have no say in the rules and which govern how we trade. it does not include services as part of three and fiction must trade and it offers only the

illusion of future trade deals. given all of this, does the treasury believe we will grow more or less fast and create more or less jobs with the negotiated agreement or with the negotiated agreement or with our current relationship with the european union? she refers of course to the withdrawal agreement. what is important in terms of the relationship that will assist is the future partnership that we negotiate with the eu, that is based as we have said the outlined declaration is based on the concept of a free—trade area and ensuring we continue to have that relationship, andi continue to have that relationship, and i can assure her as i have assured honourable members across this house before that the meaningful vote, when it is before this house, members will have enough analysis to inform them of their decision. it would be blindingly obvious to the entire country that

the prime minister's deal cannot pass this house. what they will find unforgivable is that we are running out of road and in 134 days we will be crashing out of the european union with no deal and no transition with catastrophic consequences for all the communities that we represent in this house. could i urge the prime minister again to think again about whether at this stage we should go back to the people, present them with the options, rather than just stumbling on regardless into something with such profound implications for all of our lives. the nature of the brexit, our future of our lives. the nature of the brexit, ourfuture relationship, will be a matter of course that will come before this house. members of this house will have various issues to consider when they take that vote but i would say to my honourable

friend, as i have said to other honourable and right honourable members of this house, that i firmly believe that having even the choice as to whether we should leave the eu to the british people, it is right and proper and indeed our duty as a parliament and as a government to deliver on that vote. we now know that joining deliver on that vote. we now know thatjoining the transition, which may well have to be extended, that the uk will give up our say over the rules that govern large parts of our economy and if the backstop comes into play, we won't unilaterally be able to leave it. how we are giving up able to leave it. how we are giving up our current say and influence for no say and influence, taking back control. what she describes in relation to the transition period was clear, i have answered questions in this house on it, back in march

when house agreed the concept of the transition period, so that was absolutely clear. the point of that transition period is moving towards the future relationship, and it is one in which we will have the ability to determine our position. yes, we put forward a proposal in the white paper which had frictionless trade and a common rule book, but alongside that common rule book, but alongside that common rule book was a parliamentary log in determining whether this country would accept any changes in those rules. the government is preparing to give £39 billion to the eu and there's legal obligation to do so, and we are going to get nothing in return. that is £60 million for each and every constituency in this country. if i had £60 million, i would have a bypass, roads mended properly, and urgent care centre,

andi properly, and urgent care centre, and i would have millions of pounds over. please, prime minister, use that money in this country, not give it to the eu. the premise of his question was that there was no legal obligation for us to pay anything to the eu. i have to say i believe that is not the case, i believe there are legal obligations for this country in relation to the financial settle m e nt in relation to the financial settlement with the eu, and as i said earlier i believe that as a country we are a country that abides by our legal obligations. this deal is not in the national interests and the prime minister knows that. it believes us less secure, less influential and more isolated, but on the subject of no brexit at all, could she set out what scenarios would lead to no brexit at all? as far as would lead to no brexit at all? as farasi would lead to no brexit at all? as faras i can would lead to no brexit at all? as far as i can tell there are two. one she calls a general election or two

she calls a general election or two she allows people's vote, so which of those will it be? he refers to what. .. who describe of those will it be? he refers to what... who describe what he thinks the position will be for the uk if we go ahead with this deal and talks about us being more isolated. that will not be the case. the uk will be continuing to play its role in a variety of organisations but also in the way we negotiate trade deals with the rest of the world, in the way we support and cooperate with parts of the rest of the world on matters like security and defence. there is no sense in which this uk is going to be isolated when we leave the european union. for many months, this house was assured it would have the full future framework before it when it was voted on the

withdrawal agreement. i was encouraged to hear the prime minister say further detail will emerge. that will be critical for the employment in my constituency. can the prime minister outlined when we see that future framework. this gives me an opportunity to set out the process that will be followed. we will be now entering into further intense negotiations with the european union, such that a fuller future framework can be delivered to the european council as part of the overall package and that will be published for members of this house to see. i'm conscious that it is important, while we can't agree legal text until we have left the european union, that we have sufficient detail in that future framework that members are able to have confidence in the future relationship with the eu when they come to vote on the meaningful vote.

i don't always agree with the prime minister but i know her to be a woman of courage, and ifeel sorry for her this morning, let down by the disloyalty of so many of her colleagues, and i also feel sorry for her because we have given her an impossible task. we know increasingly in this country and in this house that there is no deal better than staying in the european union, and it is time we did something to recognise and be courageous and take it back to the people. the right honourable gentleman will not be surprised that the answer i give him, despite the fa ct we the answer i give him, despite the fact we have known each other throughout my career in this house, will be no different then that i have given to others in relation to taking the vote back to the people. it was a decision of this parliament by six lush —— six to one and it's

only right this government delivers only right this government delivers on that vote. can the prime minister described any surer way of frustrating the referendum result and ultimately remaining in the european union than to accept a hotel california brexit deal which ensures we can never truly leave the eu with all its manipulative entangling and undemocratic practices. we are leaving the european union on the 29th of march 2019. we are negotiating the future relationship with the european union that will indeed deliver on the vote of the british people that took place in the referendum, and we will do so because we will bring an end

to free movement, come out of the common agricultural policy, common fisheries policy, these are issues i have referred to previously, but we will be leaving on the 29th of march 2019. the withdrawal agreement is not in the national interest and it is clear it will not make us better off. there has been an overnight polls showing 63% of the british public are against this deal with 64% favouring a people's vote if the deal is rejected which is very clear from the contributions this morning is what is going to happen in this house. once you listen to the millions of people across the country and give them a say on what brexit will actually mean rather than the false promises the road to leave was predicated on? the documents were published yesterday evening, 500 pages of the withdrawal

agreement plus the declaration and joint statement, but she once again the assumption is we should in some sense try to go back on the vote the british people talk. i believe we should not and we should ensure we do leave the european union, that was the decision taken by the british people and what we should deliver on. when i resigned from the government in june, i deliver on. when i resigned from the government injune, i called for the suspension of article 50 because i feared this likely parliamentary impasse. i know the prime minister isa impasse. i know the prime minister is a thoroughly decent person who has public service running through her veins. with that in mind, and with an eye on the importance of the responsibility of government, could the prime minister outlined to me the prime minister outlined to me the legal, the legislative and political requirements of suspending article 50 or indeed revoking it? as

i think my honourable friend will know, there is of course a case... there has been a case before the courts on the issue of the extension of article 50, but the government's position is clear, we will not extend article 15. prime minister, articles 14, 87, 89, 158, and 174 of this agreement mean the jurisdiction of the european court ofjustice will continue to reign supreme across the uk in a number of respects for four years after the transition period in some respects, eight years after the transition period in other respects, and in the case of northern ireland indefinitely. can she say in what respect her red line on the court of justice survives this agreement? yes, andi

justice survives this agreement? yes, and i was very clear when we brought back the agreement in december in the joint report in relation to citizens' rights for example that there would continue to be an ability for the interpretation of the european court ofjustice in relation to the european union law on those rights to be considered for a period of time beyond the end of the transition period and then that will cease. in relation to northern ireland is not the case it will indefinitely be the jurisdiction of the court ofjustice. the future relationship we are negotiating will ensure the uk will be removed from the jurisdiction ensure the uk will be removed from thejurisdiction of ensure the uk will be removed from the jurisdiction of the european court ofjustice. if she looks at the governance arrangements that have been proposed to be put in place, we are very clear the court of one party cannot determine matters in relation to the —— another party. my right honourable

friend has repeated today that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed, so can my right honourable friend explain why there is nothing in the withdrawal agreement that makes the withdrawal agreement that makes the withdrawal agreement legally contingent upon the implementation and the agreement ofa the implementation and the agreement of a legal relationship for the future? i say to my honourable friend that there are indeed clauses which linked the withdrawal agreement to the future relationship, and ensuring that both sides will be... and the legal term of best endeavours is used in a number of places in relation to this matter, to ensure the future relationship is in place. we are still going to be negotiating further details in relation to that future relationship, and it is the determination of both sides, as expressed in these documents, that the future relationship should be capable of being put into place at the end of the transition period.

we are saying goodbye now to viewers on bbc two but you can continue to watch this on the bbc news channel. we have been sold out by the negotiators who allowed the eu to ta ke negotiators who allowed the eu to take the lead. will she not accept that at this stage not only are we all being collectively sold out, but the people of northern ireland are being sold out absolutely? may i say to the right honourable lady that i do not agree with her in relation in the suggestion that in some sense the suggestion that in some sense the european union has given nothing away to the uk during these negotiations. these have been tough negotiations. these have been tough negotiations and it is a complex matter, but as i referred to in my statement, the eu has been clearfor some time that the choice we had in the future relationship was binary between the norway or canada model

and they have accepted that is the case and there is a bespoke agreement for the united kingdom. they said we could not share security capabilities. as is clear in the declaration, we do have access to certain security capabilities. we could preserve the border without splitting the customs territory, but that is now no longer the case. these are all issues that our negotiations have negotiated in the interests of the country. the boost to the economy referred to earlier and the necessary protection for our constituents jobs could only occur if uk industry has a frictionless trade area and deep regulatory cooperation. but uk financial services and industry need certainty. so could my right honourable friend confirmed to the house that the future political framework will contain a common rule book and a deep customs arrangement?

as my honourable friend has seen from the outline declaration, it makes reference to the free—trade area we are negotiating with the european union will stop and indeed to the need to ensure we have good arrangements across the board. as for the outline statement that accompanied this, there are two areas where further negotiation is continuing, and one of them is on theissue continuing, and one of them is on the issue relation to the trade relationships and the other is that there are aspects of the security relationship we are continuing to negotiate. but we continue to work on the basis that my honourable friend set out about the importance of that frictionless trade across border. the right honourable lady has been a professional colleagues over 20 years and i personally saw how hard she works during the 2011

riots. this whole house recognises the dedication and hard work she has put in to this 585 page agreement. however, because of her huge parliamentary experience. they also recognise that this agreement does not command a majority in this house. and that in the ten days to follow before the eu sign off this agreement, she will likely face challenges within her own party. in those circumstances, in our constitutional arrangement, when politics is broken one can only put the question back to the british people. i think having had the vote in 2016, the british people will look at this chamber, look at this house, this parliament and will say

what people say to me when i go on the doorsteps and talk to them and actually we have taken that as the decision to leave, get on with it, just deliver. prime minister, you said it would be our choice whether we go into an implementation period or backstop if the agreement cannot be reached. but in this document it says that if the protocol gives the uka says that if the protocol gives the uk a choice to either implement the backstop or seek an extension of the fermentation period, which it does by requesting that, so how is that our choice and not theirs? it is our choice as to which of those we wish to do and it's absolutely right, my honourable friend is right, that the fermentation period does need to have agreement with the european union and that is why have described

this as a choice. it is for us to say whether we wish the backstop or implementation period to be extended which is right because that would be a matter of negotiation with the european union. there are arguments on both sides if we get to that point as to which of those would be prefera ble point as to which of those would be preferable for the uk, just as actually there would be arguments on both sides for the european union because the backstop is not actually an area, situation that the european union wants to get into either. well, an extraordinary day in the house of commons and you can continue to watch it on bbc parliament, but we are just going to move away from that discussion because our political editor laura kuenssberg has been speaking to dominic raab, who resigned as brexit secretary around nine a:m., just before nine o'clock, probably the worst start to the day the theresa

may could have had. he's been speaking to laura and says he still supports the prime minister. let's listen to him now. i have been fighting for a good brexit dilber the terms proposed to the cabinet had two major and fatal flaws. first that the terms offered threaten the integrity of the uk and the second that they would lead to an indefinite it's not permanent situation where we are locked into regime with no rule over the —— say over the loo —— rules and laws and with the exit mackeson. that would be devastating for public trust in the democracy. the prime minister says that is not the case and the deal has managed to avoid both of those things. i appreciate we have different views and in fairness i think she needs a brexit secretary that will put a deal to the country with conviction and i don't think i can do that with good conscience, but i hold her in high esteem and i think she should continue but i think she should continue but i think we need to change course on brexit. the resignations come less than a

day after theresa may got the backing of her cabinet for the deal after a stormy five—hour meeting. dominic raab said he could not in good conscience support the agreement hammered out with ee you, gritting —— criticising the arrangements with northern ireland saying... his resignation was followed by that of the work and pensions secretary, esther mcvey, who said in her resignation letter that the deal does not honour the result of the referendum and two junior ministers have quit, shailesh vara, a remain supporter, and also dominic raab's junior minister suella braverman and anne—marie trevelyan from the department for education has also stepped down. let's return to the

house of commons where that discussion is going on, following on from theresa may's address to mp5. the prime minister is speaking. the cabinet was able to take decisions on the basis of the proper papers. why did she say that rejecting the deal risks no brexit? can she quantify the risk and say how it might occur? i say to the honourable gentleman that i think he will be aware that we have heard from a note —— number of honourable members from the opposition benches who wish to try to ensure that we do not leave the european union. i believe it is important that we do leave the eu and we do so on the basis of a good future relationship with the eu. it is obvious that she

is not commanding majority in the house and people supported leave know that this deal gives power to the eu not bring it back, and people who support remain know that the deal she's offering is not as good as the one we have. we've got to this point because she has played games with brexit, including calling a general election in the middle of the negotiation period. will she now do the right thing and go back to the people and save this deal is good enough for them. this is not a rerun of the referendum. the first one was based on promises, this one will be based on fact.” one was based on promises, this one will be based on fact. i refer to the —— the honourable gentleman to the —— the honourable gentleman to the answer i gave earlier. is there not a danger in getting hung up on issues such as the backstop which though, immensely important is something that we actually on all sides which to avoid? or issues such as the transition period which are

by dane definition temporary and getting hung up on these issues we lose sight of the important issue which is the future relationship with the eu. that is what we should be focusing on and discussing and thatis be focusing on and discussing and that is what the constituents expect us to deliver, and is it not the case that the vast majority of members of this house, however they voted in the referendum voted to trigger article 50 and the publisher expected to deliver on the promise and members on this side in particular should be careful what they wish for in making it harder to move to that position. can i support the comments my right honourable friend has made. and he is absolute right. there has been a lot of focus on the backstop and i recognise why there has been because there are genuine concerns about the operation of the backstop and others have reference the transition or implementation period but what will actually determine our relationship with the european union for decades ahead is the future relationship

that we negotiate with the european union. that is what will determine the futures of his constituents, my constituents and people across the whole of the uk. i take the opportunity to inform the house that we have had 50 questions from backbenchers, so may i please appeal to colleagues to put short and pointed questions as exemplified by the right honourable gentleman, the memberfor the right honourable gentleman, the member for new forest west. no deal would have catastrophic consequences for uk manufacturing. this deal will not pass parliament. why does the prime minister persist in trying to achieve the unachievable? because with every day of delay, we are one step closer to the cliff and to go over that cliff without an agreement would be the ultimate betrayal of the british national interest. can i say to the right honourable

gentleman that when it comes to the house, of course, murmurs of this house, of course, murmurs of this house will have a choice as to whether to accept the deal and i understand motor manufacturers have actually welcomed the deal and recognise that we can deliver on what matters to them in terms of the future relationship and trading partnership with the eu. many of the questions put by colleagues today would be addressed if there was more detail on the future relationship, but of course, it has been the eu negotiators are not the british negotiators are not the british negotiators who have refused to discuss the future relationship before the withdrawal agreement, so cani before the withdrawal agreement, so can i thank the prime ministerfor this outline of the future relationship akanji clarify that we will get more detail on that future relationship before the critical vote in this house? i am very happy to confirm that my honourable friend. she refers to the position of the union —— eu negotiators and

many feel they have been looking at perhaps more of the future relationship than they had expected, but we will ensure there is more detail available for members of the house before the meaningful vote. the prime minister has said the country faces three choices, no brexit, any agreement she is able to finalise and get through the house, and no deal. she has alsojust said that we will get an economic analysis and impact assessment. will she undertake to ensure that the impact assessment includes a comparison between the current deal we have, no brexit, and the one she proposes to put before the house. to withhold that promise as would be unacceptable. can i say to the honourable gentleman that we will ensure that when the time comes for people, and indeed in advance of the time when people take their relate —— decision on a meaningful vote, proper analysis will be available to make people be allowed to make a

judgment between the deal proposed and between alternative arrangements. the prime minister is well—known for her dancing. sadly, having seen the withdrawal agreement it is now clear who's choon she has been dancing to. my right honourable friend campaign for remain and voted remain, now surely it is in the national interest to leave, following a short transition period. to my honourable friend, can i note the way in which he has carefully tried to weave into his question various references to matters that are perhaps not entirely relevant to the withdrawal agreement and the political declaration. every member of this house will have a decision to ta ke of this house will have a decision to take when the deal is brought back. i believe it is important that we have a deal that delivers on the vote of the british people which i believe it does, but does that in a

way that protects jobs, people's security and protect the integrity of our united kingdom. today is truly a sad day that our country. the government is collapsing while we have food banks, a rise in child poverty and 30% of workers are in hardship jobs. poverty and 30% of workers are in hardshipjobs. what in poverty and 30% of workers are in hardship jobs. what in the three pages with lists here will the prime minister suggest can change the fortu nes minister suggest can change the fortunes of this country for the better. can i say that we see that absolute poverty is at a low and what we have seen in the figures that came out earlier this week that real wages have been growing faster than at any time in the last decade. so the portrayal she has set out of this country is not a fair portrayal. what is going to ensure and improve the futures of the

british people? getting a good deal is important, and that is what the outline political declaration sets outline political declaration sets out but also ensures that we can have good trade deals around the rest of the world, but i have to say given the benches she sits on, the economic management of what the conservatives have produced.” economic management of what the conservatives have produced. i have no doubt that my right honourable friend has, in good faith, negotiated the best deal on this withdrawal agreement that she could. it doesn't please brussels, london orany it doesn't please brussels, london or any member of this house. but nevertheless do we not only to the british people to carefully scrutinise it, together with the remaining documents she will bring back from the summit in november to see if it is in the best interests of the british people rather than crashing out of the eu with no deal. cani

crashing out of the eu with no deal. can i say that i think it is important that there is further negotiation to fill out the detail of the future relationship and it will be important the members of this house to consider these documents when they take the meaningful vote alongside the analysis that is provided by government so they have the full information to take that vote and, as he says, recalling taking that vote the duty i believe we have two deliver on the boat taken in the referendum. it is clear that this deal is not as good as the one we currently have and will make the country worse off and it is clear that there is no majority in the house for her deal or no deal in the prime minister has ruled out extending article 50 or a people's boat, so what is the plan in the event of not getting support in the house for the deal? —— vote. event of not getting support in the house for the deal? -- vote. the honourable lady will know the process set in the house that this

matter. but can i also say that she and a number of other members on the labour benches have been saying today, in praising the member should have the european union, effectively suggesting that what we should be doing is setting aside the vote of the british people and remaining in the british people and remaining in the european union. that would not be the right thing to do you must deliver on the vote the british people. outside in the realworld there are many employers and employees depending on all of us to ta ke employees depending on all of us to take responsible steps to protect theirjobs. would the prime minister agree with tech uk, who represent over1 million agree with tech uk, who represent over1millionjobs agree with tech uk, who represent over1 millionjobs in this country in the fast—growing technology stepped who state that failing to achieve parliamentary approval who —— on the withdrawal agreement will disrupt supply chains, hit investment and lead to job losses with small and medium—sized businesses being the worst affected. may i say, when the time comes for

members of this house to vote in the meaningful vote and to consider the deal before them they will indeed, i believe, as i've said earlier, need to recall the duty to deliver on the vote of the british people but also look closely at the occasion for the vote they are casting. it is the jobs and futures of our constituents that should be at the forefront of our mind. given how important immigration was for some leave voters, will the prime minister today guarantee that immigration white paper will be and debated before the meaningful vote on the deal? —— be published and big debated. the issue of immigration was very debated. the issue of immigration was very important for people during the vote and they wanted free movement to end on what we are negotiating is an end to free movement. we will publish the immigration white paper in due course. the prime minister has

worked tirelessly over the past 18 months to achieve this draft agreement. the waverley constituency i represent voted for brexit for many reasons, chief amongst them was to reverse 40 years of economic decline. in the prime minister's opinion, does this agreement provide the framework to help the economy in coastal towns, whether in trade, manufacturing or fishing question cani manufacturing or fishing question can i say that i do believe it does and in terms of fishing we will be out of the common fisheries policy and will be able to enhance the fortu nes and will be able to enhance the fortunes of the fishing industry. but also alongside the agreement it's important to look at what the government is doing elsewhere for the modern industrial strategy to ensure we are delivering an economy that works for everyone in all parts of the uk. the prime minister has been very determined to respect the will of the people. over 60% of my

constituency voted to leave believing they would be taking back control. but this deal‘s backstop will be policed by a third party. today she said it would not be used, it won't be necessary and it will be temporary, but in orderfor it it won't be necessary and it will be temporary, but in order for it not to be used we will have to pay and who knows what, potentially massive amounts to the eu to extend the transition period. how is making my constituents and the country poorer taking back control? may i say, that the best way of ensuring the backstop is not used is to get the future relationship and partnership with the european union in place by the 1st of january 2021. will my right honourable friend please confirm that other nations will not have access to anything other than the surplus fish stocks of british waters that the uk fleet cannot catch after the 31st of december 2020, even if the implementation

period is extended ? 2020, even if the implementation period is extended? we have not changed our position that, as of december 2020, the uk should be an independent coastal state, able to negotiate the issue of access to its waters before the following year and thereafter. the prime minister has been on her feet now for almost two hours, and she talked about making difficult choices. she also said that this wasn't the final deal. with the pound is set to have its biggest fall for two years and only seven mps in two hours expressing any support for this deal at all, can she tell us what she expects to change to be able to break the deadlock? can i say to the honourable lady that what will happen over the next few days and

before the special european council ta kes pla ce before the special european council takes place is the final negotiation in matters relating to the future relationship to fill out the details about future relationship which will show a future relationship that will be good for the uk economy. firstly, may i pay huge personal respect to the prime minister where ever you stand on the matter. can i urge my right honourable friend to study evidence given to my constituency is custom experts and their suggestions around facilitation and technical ways of achieving a soft border and one that does not require a backstop. would she agree with me that the independent arbitration panel is bound to find that if the eu does not negotiate the future arrangement with that in mind it's likely have been found to have acted in bad faith. indeed, and that is the point of the best endeavours and

good—faith references within the document. and may i first say that this is the first opportunity i have in this chamber to say a heartfelt thank you to my honourable friend for the work he did for the commemorations of the armistice and centenary commemorations of the armistice and ce nte nary of commemorations of the armistice and centenary of the first world war. i think he can be truly proud of all the events that took place. but he also referenced the issue of alternative arrangements for the border in northern ireland and one of the changes taking place before we got into the protocol of the joint statement in relation to the backstop issue is the ability to look at alternative arrangements rather than just the binary choice of the future relationship coming into place or the backstop coming into place or the backstop coming into place. we have the extension of the fermentation period as an option but what's also important is that if the future framework is not in place it's possible to have alternative border arrangements which satisfy

the requirement we all have to make sure there is no hard border between ireland and northern ireland. at previous times in our history with national crises we have come together on both sides of the house together on both sides of the house to resolve those crises. the prime minister has made clear that she will not support the extension of article 50 and she said we will be leaving the european union regardless in march next year and she has also ruled out a people's vote. isn't it time she recognised reality and, after all her prodigious efforts, stood aside for someone else who can take this country someone else who can take this cou ntry forward someone else who can take this country forward in a united way? no. does the prime minister feel she has listened to her officials while

sidelining her brexit secretaries, and is she now disobeying the instruction of my constituency in gravesham? i have to say the answer to both questions is no. i have worked with my brexit secretaries, with the officials of the negotiating team throughout the process and i believe the deal we are proposing does deliver on the instruction of the british people. asa as a psychologist it is clear to me today that the prime minister is in denial. however pragmatically agreed this deal has been made, it does not command a majority in the house. if she believes in her deal and she wa nts to she believes in her deal and she wants to give back control, will she put it to the people?” wants to give back control, will she put it to the people? i refer the honourable lady to the answer i've given early on that question. millions of people up and down this country and tens of thousands of

businesses want this house to get on with it. could i say to my right honourable friend, as she looks to develop the future framework, i recognise we will remain within the eu procurement rules during the course of the fermentation period. the future framework protocol refers to mutual opportunities to go beyond the wto procurement agreement —— and fermentation period. could you give an indication whether that involves taking back procurement and control in ourown taking back procurement and control in our own country? yes we are developing a framework for procurement. in the light that a no deal would be a disasterfor the nation and in the high probability that this deal will not be passed by this house, will the prime minister made it herfirst this house, will the prime minister made it her first step to extend article 50 to ensure we do not fall

offa article 50 to ensure we do not fall off a cliff edge? no, the government has made it clear we will not be extending article 50. the draft agreement states that under no circumstances may the uk applied to its customs territory eight customs tariff its customs territory eight customs ta riff lower its customs territory eight customs tariff lower than the common customs tariff lower than the common customs tariff for any good or import from a third country. would my right honourable friend agree that that is a severe limitation on our sovereignty and limit the opportunities that brexit offers? cani opportunities that brexit offers? can i say to my honourable friend at what he is talking about is the circumstances in which the backstop and the uk wide customs territory has come into place. as i said earlier, that's not a situation either side wants to see happen and evenin either side wants to see happen and even in the circumstances where the future relationship is not in place at the end of december 2020 it's not necessarily the case that the backstop would come into place. if we look at the future relationship,

he will see there is a specific reference to the independent trade policy for the uk and that is precisely what we are working to ensure that we are able to do with those trade deals around the rest of the world, and that was one of the questions we looked at when we put forward proposals for the free trade area with the european union and we have gone forward, confident we will be able to do free trade deals around the rest of the world.” agree with the prime minister that there are no enemies of the people in this house. there are no traitors, whatever the national newspapers said last year and every single member will make a judgment according to their conscience as to what is in the best interests of the country. but i think the honourable memberfor country. but i think the honourable member for rayleigh was right earlier. there's not a majority for what the prime minister proposes in this house. there is a matter of time, time is of the essence and there are lots of decisions to be taken in there are lots of decisions to be ta ken in lots there are lots of decisions to be taken in lots of legislation to get in place if there will not be chaos.

would it not make sense now before she goes to the european council to have a vote in this house, and if she wins, she has the support of parliament, and if she loses, we have to take another tack. we will have to take another tack. we will have a vote in this house on the final deal that is negotiated with the european union council. as i said, although we have the outline political declaration at the moment, we will fill that in with further detail which will be available to members when they come to vote. the prime minister and i know that politics ultimately it's about the art of the possible and that is why i support her deal, and that is why the city corporation and all the representatives of the financial industry have supported it, not least because it creates in their words the transition which is vital to ta ke words the transition which is vital to take forward the complex issues in relation to our future relationships in that area. does she agree that anyone who seeks to

thwart this deal should weigh very carefully the impact notjust upon that key economic area but on the rest of their economy as well? i would say to my friend mike batty is correct and i think when people come to look at their decision in relation to this deal it will be important for individual members of this house to weigh carefully the number of factors and the impact on financial services and the economy more widely will be one of those. thank you, mr speaker. my constituency voted leave and promised we would fight for the best brexit dealfor them. promised we would fight for the best brexit deal for them. one that will protect the industry... it is not it. given ceramics is mentioned only once in the 585 page deal, how can we trust the prime minister to deliver a deal which will benefit my constituents, protectjobs and return sovereignty? the deal we have agreed, and particularly, obviously, the future relationship we are working on to

fill out the detail of, is precisely one that will be good for manufacturing industries across the united kingdom. taking back control of our borders was a big issue at my constituents voted on in the referendum, with their vote. can my right honourable friend confirmed that leaving the eu on the terms proposal allow us to fully control our borders? iam happy fully control our borders? i am happy to give that confirmation to my honourable friend fat—free movement will end and that is one of the key elements of the vote in the referendum we deliver for the british people. —— i confirm that free movement will end. if the analogy of the backstop is an insurance policy, anyone buying insurance policy, anyone buying insurance would want to know what the access is on that policy. is she suggesting we should sign up for an insurance policy when we don't know

how much the access will cost? and we also can't leave the insurance policy without the agreement of the other party. i says to the honourable gentleman, one of the elements of the backstop, where in deciding should we be in that circumstance whether the backstop or the extension to the implementation period would be preferable, one of the elements is that in the backstop there is no financial obligation. thank you, mr speaker. it is impossible for any of us to know in this house exactly what was in the minds of our constituents voted leave remain. actors because of the binary choice on the paper. because of that, it is impossible for everybody to get what they want. compromises are necessary in the national interest, as the prime minister has said. therefore, will she i sure as today that she will exert every effort to outline the

benefits of a future trade deal that would be in the national interest and protect jobs and would be in the national interest and protectjobs and the economy? iam happy and protectjobs and the economy? i am happy to get that reassurance to my honourable friend and she is right. the nature of this negotiation is that both sides make compromises. that is what happens when two sides negotiate arrangements such as this. but i am happy to assure her we will make clear the benefits of the future trade relationship and future trade deals we will do around the world. the response of the scottish fishermen ‘s federation says, and i quote, we have asked the prime minister for assurances that the establishment of a new fisheries agreement does not imply that eu vessels will be guaranteed continued access to our waters in return for favourable trade terms. can the prime minister give the federation that assurance? and if she can, could you explain why it is not in the draft deal?

i say to the honourable gentleman that we have made clear in the draft deal in relation to fishing opportunities that... sorry, in the outline political declaration, that the united kingdom will be an independent coastal state. and that we will be ensuring we take control of our waters. it will be the uk that will be negotiating access to united kingdom waters. given that there is clearly uneasy about the non—unilateral ability we have to leave the backstop, surely we have to discuss what credible circumstances could arise where we would wish to leave it and the eu would wish to leave it and the eu would not wish us to leave. does she agree the only real scenario i could see is where we have entered into trade talks with another country where, for example, we were discussing lower standards... does she agree it is highly unlikely and it would not be supported by the public and although it is not

impossible it is remote to be in that second stance? i say to my honourable friend it is highly unlikely we will be in that second stance and i agree. he is right we will not be wanting to lower standards in any decisions we make in relation to trade deals, but also that the backstop is actually an uncomfortable place for the eu. they believe the backstop has advantages for businesses in the uk, particularly businesses in northern ireland. these are advantages they would not want to see continuing. they have an interest in this being temporary, should we be in that position, just as we do. the northern ireland laws make it clear that northern ireland will stay under eu single market law and also be economically separated from the rest of the united kingdom. articles seven, nine and 12 show that, first of all, even if the eu allow the uk

to leave the single market, northern ireland will stay under single market arrangements, and any border down the irish sea will be subject to the willingness of the eu to allow that to be avoided. can the prime minister then tell us how she can give an assurance that northern ireland will remain constitutionally separated from the united kingdom, and economically separated from... is this not a case of northern ireland being put onto a platter? it is not the case. i have throughout this discussion, throughout this discussion, throughout these negotiations, the interests of northern ireland as one of the key issues we have then quitting at the forefront of our mind because of the particular geographical circumstances of northern ireland and its land border with ireland. i say to the honourable gentleman, northern ireland will leave the single market with the whole of the uk. there will be specific regulatory alignment,

which recognises uncomfortable and i recognise that... it would be in that portion of the single market, which relates to matters which ensure a frictionless border can ta ke ensure a frictionless border can take place between ireland and northern ireland. as he will know, they're already differences between great britain and northern ireland. there is a question in the future i know has raised concern, as to whether there will be regulatory divergence between great britain and northern ireland. it is possible for us and we will make unilateral commitments to northern ireland in relation to that issue of... because we are talking about a temporary period of no regulatory divergence. checks and controls relate to the degree of regular treat divergence, so there is no regulatory divergence, obviously that has an impact on reducing the necessity for any checks and controls. and crucially we also wanted to make sure, the eu wanted to say they

would determine whether a good that was developed or produced in birmingham could be sold in belfast. it is clear the eu could not determine in the future and it will be the uk government exhaust exterminations. —— the uk government will make those determinations. i think what this means my constituents, many have voted passionately to leave and many others worried about the impact of leaving on their livelihood. i thank my right honourable friend for all of the work she is doing to reconcile those two positions in a workable brexit. but as a kent mp i have a particular interest in avoiding delays at the border at dover so we don't get gridlock in kent. could my right honourable friend say more about the progress made forfuture friend say more about the progress made for future relationship friend say more about the progress made forfuture relationship plans for our trading goods? i say to my honourable friend that i thank herfor the i say to my honourable friend that i thank her for the comments she made and recognition that by definition

looking at these issues there will be compromise. there are people who voted on both sides of this argument won the brexit vote came, and the overwhelming view of the british people is to see the government getting on and delivering brexit for the british people. she asked specifically about goods and we have expressly within the outline political declaration, and we will be flashing this up in the future framework document, put out a key element at the forefront of our thinking that we need to ensure we have continued good trading relationship with the seamless tra nsfer of relationship with the seamless transfer of goods across borders. thank you very much, mr speaker. i have been very clear that my constituents voted to leave the eu and the only way we can do that smoothly is leaving with a deal. however, it is clear from the speeches made in this house today that the prime minister's deal does not have a majority and she has also ruled out article 50 and she has

also said she would not support a second referendum. i do not believe the majority exists for that in this place anyway. but i hope, like me, the prime minister realises no deal would be a catastrophe. could i ask her to outline her contingency between this deal failing and preventing a no—deal brexit on the 29th of march? the decision about this deal will be one that will come before this house in the meaningful vote, and every member will have the opportunity to exercise their vote according to their conscience and according to their conscience and according to the need to deliver for the british people, a consideration of the impact that the decision they make will have on the futures of their constituents. i hope my right honourable friend would agree with me that we would be unwise to sacrifice the good on the altar of theological perfection. and if she does agree with me with that principle point, can she tell me if

this is a good dealfor the farmers and food producers, notjust of my constituency of north dorset before the country as a whole? constituency of north dorset before the country as a whole ?” constituency of north dorset before the country as a whole? i will say to my honourable friend that i think it is important that in approaching this issue of the deal, and honourable members when they come to the meaningful vote should look at this in questions of the reality of the impact and the practicalities of the impact and the practicalities of the deal that we have put before... that we will put before this house. he asked specifically about farmers in his north dorset constituency and elsewhere and reassure him i think in two senses that delivers for them. first, we will come out of the common agricultural policy and develop our own agriculture policy which meets the needs of families across the uk. secondly, when we talk about the frictionless border, people often talk about manufactured goods but fresh produce going across

those borders is also equally important. the local plant closing, 200 jobs, 800 virgin media job losses, since 2016 referendum, there has been morejob losses losses, since 2016 referendum, there has been more job losses than losses, since 2016 referendum, there has been morejob losses thanjobs created. it is increasingly obvious that my constituents and constituents in wales are worse off, and shouldn't this government respect the future well—being of the people by asking for a people's vote ? back and said the question in relation to the people's vote are a number of occasions and i refer to the answers i previously gave. the employment figures we saw earlier this week show we have now seen employment at a record high in this country. in recent years, including since the referendum, jobs have been created in this country. i have respect for my honourable friend and it gives me no happiness

to say this, but nothing i have heard in the last two hours suggest this as anything other than a bad deal. when will my honourable friend realised that in places like north east derbyshire this is not the deal they voted for and they want all will accept? i say to my honourable friend in response to his question, i believe, and obviously he will have an understanding of the reasons behind the vote for his individual constituents in north east derbyshire, i think if we look across his constituency and others that some of the key issues people wa nted that some of the key issues people wanted to see from leaving the eu we re wanted to see from leaving the eu were an end to free movement which were an end to free movement which we will deliver, and they wanted to see an end to the jurisdiction of the european court ofjustice and we will deliver that as well. we will no longer be sending vast amounts of money to the eu every year and will we come other policies which were of concern for a long time in this country, the common agricultural policy and the common fisheries policy. and we will be ensuring that asi

policy. and we will be ensuring that as i say we have delivered on what i believe are the key elements of the vote people talk. while we do that i think it is also correct we think of jobs in north east derbyshire and elsewhere, and that is why it is important we look for a good trading relationship with the eu in future, one that is based on a free—trade area that enables manufacturing to continue to operate as it can do today. does the prime minister now accept that she inadvertently misled the nation during her now infamous lancaster house speech, which appeared to offer a utopian vision of brexit, possibly designed to appease both wings the divided party that simply cannot and never could be delivered? well said. i must say that all the speeches i have made and the decisions the government has taken are compatible with the lancaster house speech. the lancaster house speech. the

lancaster house speech at its core setup that any new relationship with the eu we had to have a new balance of rights and obligations that is exactly what are delivering. constituents of my constituency welcome my honourable friend's repeated commitment we will be leaving the common fisheries policy. being out of the eu means we are out of the common fisheries policy, in the same way that being in the eu, which is the policy of the scottish national party and others, means being in the cfp... you know it does. she also commit that u nfettered does. she also commit that unfettered access the uk waters by eu fishing vessels out with our ability to control as an independent coastal state will not be part of any agreement with the eu? i say to my honourable friend we're clear that we will be an independent coastal state and there has been attem pts coastal state and there has been atte m pts to coastal state and there has been attempts to link fisheries and access to fishing waters to the

trade aspect of this negotiation, with us being clear we will not accept that. we will be an independent coastal state so it is the uk determining access to uk waters. uncertainty about our futures trading relationships with the eu is undermining british business and having a chilling effect on our economic growth. there is nothing in this so—called deal which actually dispels all resolves theissues which actually dispels all resolves the issues which are making for this. will the prime minister recognise that instead of negotiating with the economic kamikaze tendency on our own party, she needs to reach out to the side of the house and build a consensus or take the issue again to the public?

the decision that was taken yesterday actually gives that certainty to business, which is why business has been welcoming baxendale. we hear from business has been welcoming baxendale. we hearfrom iceland but it delivers a clear path that business needs. —— business has been welcoming to the deal. it brings certainty small businesses have craved. is this have welcomed the fa ct craved. is this have welcomed the fact that we have recognised the needs of the manufacturing industry in putting forward proposals for the future relationship. —— businesses have welcomed this. i commend the prime ministerfor saying this to members opposite and our own side who have called for a politician ‘s' vote on the issue of a second referendum. it would not be appropriate at this time. however, it must be said that her words that no deal is better than a bad deal are words which govern my position

today. i cannot support that, so does she appreciate that for many of us she has placed us in an possible position where our loyalty to her and our party is set against loyalty to constituents? i fully recognise that the issue that we are dealing with raises some difficult decisions for individual members of this house. the choices for members of this house are not easyin for members of this house are not easy in a recognise that. as i said, obviously won the final deal is brought back to this house individual members will want to look at the details of that and consider at the details of that and consider at the details of that and consider at the forefront the interests of their constituents and this country asa their constituents and this country as a whole. as i say, i recognise this is not an easy decision for people. i believe that what we have negotiated is in the best interests of our country overall and we will be filling out more details of that before the matter comes before the house. i hope members of the house

can look at that detail and consider the various issues they have to do so when they do that and that in no way it says that this will be an easy choice, and i recognise that fully. i voted remain but i represent a leave constituency. i try really ha rd represent a leave constituency. i try really hard to represent everybody in lincoln, notjust the ones that shout the loudest, and i truly get an evenly split mailbox on this, i genuinely do. but i feel that this deal does not meet the aspirations and hopes of either side. it fails to protectjobs and the economy and create a border down the economy and create a border down the irish sea. i would just say, if the irish sea. i would just say, if the prime minister will not listen to the labour benches, will she not look at the faces on her own side and listen to their words and recognised this is a really bad deal? this deal does not create a border down the irish sea and it does take the future relationship and outlined political declaration takes the

interests of people's jobs into account in ensuring we are negotiating a free—trade area that will enable that the trade relationship to keep being maintained with the eu, which enablesjobs to maintained with the eu, which enables jobs to be maintained with the eu, which enablesjobs to be notjust maintained here in the uk but created here. does the prime minister make herself clear how committed her royal scottish conservative policies are to fishing and the union? i am very clear and indeed i would say to my honourable friend that i think he and our scottish colleagues on the conservative benches are an admirable contrast to the snp, who are committed to neither fishing admirable contrast to the snp, who are committed to neitherfishing nor the union? in the last few months, the prime minister has had a loss of the bottom of her cabinet and more resignations to follow. the deal

trashed by large sections of her bench and there are letters for other members... how many more indignities does the prime minister have to endure before she considers her position? my position is that i am...i her position? my position is that i am... i have only one duty and that is to deliver for the british people and the national interest. the prime minister will be aware that hertfordshire is fortunate enough to have some major businesses in farming industries and aerospace industry and motor industry and so on, and they rely on having short times for the delivery of parts, just in time arrangements and that sort. they have integrated manufacturer across europe. can the pm say if she feels that this agreement she has put before us is going to be in the best interests of

businesses like that and all the jobs in hertfordshire which rely on them? ido them? i do believe that is the case. the future relationship, in developing the future relationship with the eu, we have been considering as a key issued the need to ensure that trade across borders, thosejust—in—time supply chains can continue. many jobs in constituencies around the country depend on that so i can give my honourable friend that assurance. i visited a business in croydon recently and they are currently looking at warehouses just outside amsterdam to move their business to come because they think the direction of travel this government is taking on brexit will not work for them. it is clear the prime minister is not going to get a vote in this house on this deal. she has ruled out extending article 50 and ruled out extending article 50 and ruled out extending article 50 and ruled out a general election and ruled out a general election and

ruled out a people's vote and ruled no deal as well. can i ask the prime minister to categorically state, for the sake of the businesses in croydon waiting right now to know what is going to happen in the future, what will she do if she loses the vote in parliament?” future, what will she do if she loses the vote in parliament? i say to the honourable lady, if she is concerned about croydon businesses she should look carefully at the future relationship we are developing with the eu. we will fill out further details in relation to that but that future relationship will deliver for the businesses in croydon or deliver on the issues they have expressed concerns about, and will deliver in a way that ensuresjobs can and will deliver in a way that ensures jobs can be and will deliver in a way that ensuresjobs can be kept in her constituency. may i congratulate my right honourable friend for securing the steel and say there is much in here that pleased my constituency who voted strongly to come out, including taking control of our borders and ending the free movement of labour? i say to the pro

minister, her task of bringing this to the house for a meaningful vote will be much help if she can flush out the future relationship. this is critical. for those of her friends in europe listening to this debate, if they can come to her aid and make it clear they really do want a future relationship secured before the backstop comes into place, she has a real chance of carrying this house. i thank my honourable friend for his comments and give them reassurance i will be filling out the detail and we will be in negotiations in the coming days, filling out the detail of that future framework so that when the house comes to take that meaningful vote they will have a better understanding of the nature of the future relationship, which is one, asi of the future relationship, which is one, as i say, that i believe we will be able to deliver for agriculture, fishing and security. does she accept that the factoring

of her own party —— fracturing of her own party demonstrates that the 17,000 500 -- the her own party demonstrates that the 17,000 500 —— the people who voted for brexit were not united in what brexit meant so her claim of delivering for the majority of the british people is incorrect. the majority vote was to leave the european union and that is what we will deliver. i believe those who voted leave in torbay did so because of global trading principles which would have then included injoining our transpacific partnership, including someone at that very despatch box. could she reassure me the deal will facilitate british rubbish about that agreement? friend, we looked at this proposal as to whether it would be possible tojoin this trade

as to whether it would be possible to join this trade partnership and i give reassure and edward and not only would it be possible but also there are members of this partnership is keen for us to join it, such as japan and australia. given the fact it is obviously clear from the contributions today and questions to the prime minister that there is not a parliamentary majority for the deal she is bringing forward today. what is the plan the prime minister has got, just you wait for the votes we lost and then panic? the british people deserve better and the prime minister has not got the confidence of this house to put this deal through and there needs to be alternatives brought before us and the british people. we will negotiate the remaining details of this deal and there will be obviously the eu council on the 25th of november. that will be brought back to this house and information will be made available to members of

this house and at that point members of this house will determine whether they wish to support the deal. which pa rt they wish to support the deal. which part of the financial settlement under the proposed withdrawal agreement would be payable during implementation period and during any backstop? the financial settlement has a trajectory in terms of payment, some of which would be beyond the period that my honourable friend has referred to. there is no specific financial obligation in relation to the backstop, should that backstop come into play. the prime minister is so confident of the merits of this deal, is she not slightly concerned when she goes to europe other member states will look at it enviously and want to leave the eu on similar terms? does not give way to the truth...

we are leaving the commons coverage on the bbc news channel. if you wish to carry on watching, coverage continues on bbc parliament and there will be all the latest reaction coming up on bbc news at one, live from westminster. the prime minister has been on herfeet now for two and a half hours answering questions about her brexit deal and very few voices raised in support of her. more reaction to that coming up in a few moments. four ministers resign in protest at the draft brexit deal, two of them from the cabinet. dominic raab was the first to saying he couldn't support theresa may's proposed deal. in fairness i think she needs a brexit secretary that will pursue the deal she to put to the country with conviction, i don't feel i can do that in good conscience but i hold her in high esteem and i think she should continue, but i think we need to change course on brexit.

theresa may is facing a grilling in parliament, and has warned voting against the deal would put the country back to square one.