this is bbc news. the headlines: prime minister theresa may has vowed to press on with her brexit plans — despite several ministerial resignations yesterday and a growing challenge to her leadership. meanwhile, other eu leaders have said they won't renegotiate the draft brexit agreement — even if it's rejected by parliament in britain. the united states has imposed sanctions on seventeen saudi arabian officials over their alleged role in the murder of the journalist, jamal khashoggi. in saudi arabia itself, a government prosecutor has said he's seeking the death penalty for five people charged with the killing at the saudi consulate in istanbul. judges at the international tribunal in cambodia are about to deliver a verdict on genocide charges against two leaders of the khmer rouge. nuon chea and khieu samphan are accused of carrying out a policy of targeting and eliminating members of two ethnic minorities. they have already been convicted of other crimes. now on bbc news, thursday in parliament. hello and welcome to the programme.

cabinet ministers have quit theresa may's government over the draft brexit agreement, but the prime minister faces brexit agreement, but the prime ministerfaces mps brexit agreement, but the prime minister faces mps were three questions over her plans. —— three hours of questions. voting against the deal would take us back to square the deal would take us back to square one the deal would take us back to square one and the more uncertainty and division and theirfailure square one and the more uncertainty and division and their failure to deliver on the decision of the bridge builder we should the eu. but the labour leader rejects of proposals, and things are the leaders will do the same. the government must now withdraw this half baked deal which is clear does not have the cabinet. this parliament. or the country as a whole. meanwhile, in the lords, a

former brexit minister thinks what is on offer confirms his worst fears. applicable decoration is meaningless waffle. worst of all, it is laced with cyanide of the backstop. theresa may has spent the day doggedly defending her drop brexit agreement. it is all about how the uk leads the european union, not the permanent future relationship. it covers things like the divorce bill and arrangements for eu citizens in the uk and the northern irish border during what is known as the transition period immediately after brexit. at a news conference on thursday evening, she told reporters " overlit with every fibre of my being there because i have set out is the right one for a cou ntry". have set out is the right one for a country". her comments came at the end of what even by westminster standards had been pretty four hours of high drama. on wednesday night after a five—hour cabinet meeting, she emerged onto downing street seeing her cabinet had accepted the d raft seeing her cabinet had accepted the draft brexit agreement between the

uk and the eu. but by thursday that delicate consensus was falling apart. the first hint of trouble came at breakfast time when a junior northern ireland minister resigned. but the real blow came just before 9am with the news that the brexit secretary dominc raab had quit saying he couldn't reconcile the proposed deal with the promises made at the last election. he was swiftly followed out of government by the work and pensions secretary esther mcvey. in her resignation letter she said the uk's hands would be bound and the uk would not be taking back control whilst handing over £39 billion to the eu. all of which created a tense atmosphere when theresa may came to the commons to set out her plans. we were told that we had a binary choice. between the model of norway or the model of canada. that we could not have a bespoke deal. but the outline political declaration sets out an arrangement that is better for our country that both of these, and more ambitious

free—trade agreement than the eu has with any other country. she turned to the big sticking point the border between northern ireland and the republic. i believe this issue can best be solved through our future relationship with the european union. the withdrawal agreement sets out an insurance policy should that new relationship not be ready in time at the end of the period. i cannot pretend this is bank owned or process or that either we or the eu are entirely happy with all of the arrangements that have been included within it. of course this is the case. this is an arrangement that we have both said we never want to have again. some people might pretend otherwise, there is no other deal that delivers the brexited british people voted for which does not involve this insurance policy. i know it has been a frustrating process that has forced us to confront very difficult issues, but a better brexited, one that's in the national interest is possible. we have persevered

and made a decisive breakthrough. once the final deal is agreed i will bring it to parliament and i will ask mps to consider the national interest and give their backing. voting against a deal would take us all back to square one. the withdrawal agreement in the outline to political declaration represented huge and damaging failure. after two years of bungled negotiations the government has produced a botched deal that bridges the prime minister's on redline says does not mean our six tests. the government is in chaos. their deal risks leaving the country in an indefinite halfway house without a real say. this is not the deal the country was promised. and parliament cannot

and i believe will not accept a false choice between this bad deal and said no deal. people around the country will be feeling anxious this morning. about the industries they work in. the jobs they hold. about the stability of their communities and their country. the government must now withdraw this half— baked deal which is clear does not have the backing of the cabinets, this parliament or the country asa whole. the prime minister comes before us today to sell us a deal that is already dead in the water. not even her own brexit secretary could stand on this. he said the door to number ten had becoming a revolving one and a prime

minister who talked about taking back control couldn't even control her own cabinet. it is now clear that there is not a majority for this deal or a no deal. the prime minister must go back to brussels and extend article 50 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 the prices. prime minister, do the right thing and we will work with you. stop the clock and go back to brussels. but if his statement was a complaint that scotland was not mentioned in these documents. scotland is not specifically mentioned, scotland is a part of the united kingdom. i could today stand here and take the premise you

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 so that she clearly does not listen. the choices are now clear. we said up the united kingdom, the whole of the united kingdom and integrity of the united kingdom. or we vote for it different stage with the break—up of the united kingdom. the prime minister asserts there's two alternatives to her plan. no deal and no brexit. the government is investing in contingency planning for no deal. what contingency planning is she doing for no brexit? including for example advising the commission that article 50 may have to be withdrawn and that she herself is preparing for the fact however much she hates it that the house may instruct her to carry out a vote? he asked me what planets

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. green's caroline lucas, said mrs may knews her deal was dead and no deal would be a disaster. joined the calls for a fresh vote we risk chaos and job losses and the existing crisis. that was never the will of the people. they did not vote for that. this is not a parlor game, it's a real people's realised. it can only be addressed if we put aside party politics and so i appealed to her again why will she not give the people of this country a vote? a vote on whether this

country goes next? this parliament gave the people of vote, they voted to leave and we will deliver on their vote. theresa may. well if the prime minister hoped she'd get a warmer response from her own backbenchers she was soon disappointed with conservatives among those calling for another referendum. which she at least today undertake not to rule out taking this back to the british people and having... unafraid on that particular issue i will disappoint my right honourable friend. i'm not going to change the position i've taken in this house and indeed taken more widely. there was little obvious support for the prime minister's position. it's quite clear she cannot not command house of commons on these proposals. in fact the most up—to—date asked if the honourable members opposite will put their hands up if they actually do support the prime minister on this set of proposals. not one. a prominent brexiteer was first to raise the leadership question directly. as a my right honourable friend says and does no longer match, should

not write to my right honourable friend the member. that's graham brady, to whom jacob rees mogg later sent a letter calling for a vote of no confidence in the prime minister. theresa may didn't address the leadership question. another mp did. with respect to my honourable friend for north east somerset i believe these issues are so complex that one should not do with them on a personal basis but my question is this, will she help me in mind what if the brexit secretary is right? what is his resignation letter is devastating and correct groom? we will be locked up permanently have backstop arrangement.

what if therefore she loses this vote in parliament which is very likely? can she promised me that whatever happens in this vote she will deliver brexit for 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 that we will deliver on that whatever happens. whatever happens in between. the statement had been going on for an hour before some mps came forward to offer support. i want it i want to pay to beautify city prime minister diggin agreement and cabinet and regattas of how many muzinic is there are between now and that vote that the agreement would come to parliament and parliament will have its say and she is clear that voting for that agreement is in the national interest? can i say to my right honourable friend i could give the assurance that obviously we have the step of the european union and finalizing

the deal, but the deal when finalised would 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. but she was warned the parliamentary maths were against her. it's 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 thomas before you stood up. so i plead with you, i plead with you to accept the political reality of the situation you now face. we will go forward with the final negotiations towards that council meeting on the 25th of november. and when a deal is brought back it will be for members of this house not just to look at the details of that deal but to consider the vote of the british people and consider our duty to deliver on the vote of the british people. labour brexiteers were also unhappy.

the prime minister may very dignified statements in a very difficult circumstance, but that she actually realise that outside of this house would google reader these hundreds of pages of euro speak they will realise we're being sold out by our negotiators who have allowed the eu to take the lead? will she not accept that if at this stage not only are we all being collectively sold out the people of northern ireland are being sold out? absolutely. but i said that i do not agree with her in relation to the suggestion that some sense the european union has given nothing away to the uk during these negotiations. the snp suggested her time was up. the last two months the prime minister has lost about a quarter of her cabinet with resignations to follow. as he has seen her dead on arrival

deal has been trashed by large sections of the back bench that apparently letters are waiting for the honourable member. how many more indignities to the prime minister have to endure before she considers her position? my position is that i have only one duty and that's to deliver for the british people in the national interest. theresa may. you're watching thursday in parliament with me, alicia mccarthy, on the day the prime ministerfaced mps for three hours in the commons to defend her draft brext agreement. now away from brexit just for a moment and to the lords, where peers blocked the immediate suspension of the veteran human rights lawyer and former liberal democrat peer, lord lester, after allegations of sexual harassment.

the lords privileges and conduct committee wanted lord lester to be suspended from the lords untiljune 2022, after accepting complaints against him of sexual harassment, and of offering a woman "corrupt inducements" to sleep with him, in the form of a promise of a peerage. lord lester had denied all the allegations. the deputy lords speaker, lord mcfall, defended the report by the conduct committee, and the work of the commissioner for standards. the commissioner is herself a highly experienced investigator, she is a former president of the law society, and now sits as a judge. she applied through processes that this house has set down for enforcement over code of conduct. she should not be criticized for doing exactly what the house tasked her with doing, and which the committee for privileges and conduct found

she had done properly. but the leading lawyer, lord pannick, proposed that the case be remitted to the conduct committee. lord's, i do not know, your lordships cannot know whether lord lester committed the acts alleged against him. i would be very surprised, but i don't know. what i do know is that the procedure applied by the commissioner for standards was manifestly unfair. it was manifestly unfair because if you are going to assess the credibility of competing contentions as to what occurred nearly 12 years ago, if you're going to apply a very serious sanction against someone, and if you're going to destroy their hitherto unblemished reputation, you have to allow them through their counsel

to cross—examine the person who is making those allegations, which turn on credibility. my concern only is the same as lord pannick's, that we are operating a flawed system that can unfairly damage a distinguished person's life and their reputation. at the end of that debate, peers voted by 101 to 78 to support lord pannick's amendment, so lord lester's case will be reconsidered. lord mcfall said he was "deeply disappointed" by that decision. lord lester, meanwhile, said he looked forward to restoring his reputation. now, of course, there's still a long way to go until any deal between the uk and the eu is finalised and mps get to have their say by what's been labelled a "meaningful vote". but when will that vote come? straight after the prime minister's marathon session at the dispatch box, mps took part in their regular

question and answer session about future parliamentary business. the shadow leader of the commons wanted to know what was going to happen next. we've had the statement, but could the leader outline a statement for the next stage? the prime minister alluded to the fact that the house will get a debate. will it be before christmas or after christmas? when are we likely to be able to scrutinize this very important agreement, given that the eu will be meeting on the 25th of november? the 25th of november will be eu council, after that point, the deal will be finalized, and it will then be brought back to this house for lengthy review, for discussion, for debate, for a meaningful vote. an snp mp was pleased to see the brexit leaning commons leader at the dispatch box. she's only gone and upset my brexit resignation bingo cooking,

mr speaker, because i had her down as a resigner today. what do we hear from the house is going to happen now? we need to be reassured that this nonsensical choice is taken right off the table. we just listened to a statement, over half the tory backbenchers were trashing the prime minister's deal. it will not get through this house, we are facing the option of a no—deal brexit. so what we need to design is a process that this house can consider a proper response, with all the options property presented so that we can take an informed choice and the leader of the house has to say today it's not about a bad deal or no deal. the devil or the deep blue sea. mr speaker, normally i'm very happy to entertain his banter but all he has done today is demonstrate he is not very good at bingo. he talks about me having to resign, he had me down for a resignee,

what i can say to him is i'm staying in government because there is more work to be done to get the brexit that the prime minister wants to deliver to the people, and therefore i am determined to support her to do that. now him bantering about it and mocking it is all very well, but he doesn't suggest anything else. and his party has formed for ignoring the will of a referendum in scotland that voted to stay in the united kingdom. what are they doing sitting there, all they want to do is to break up the united kingdom, and against the will of scottish fishers keep them in the common fisheries policy, how much sense does that make? the leader of the commons, andrea leadsom. down the corridor, peers too were giving their first reactions to the draft agreement. and if theresa may was hoping for a warmer welcome there she was to be sorely disappaointed. the lords described it variously as a "dead parrot", a "humiliation" and "unacceptable". amid repeated calls for a second referendum, there was little support for mrs may among peers. labour's leader paraphrased oscar wilde.

to lose one brexit secretary may be regarded as a misfortune, to lose two looks like carelessness. watching the statements in the other place, she is failing to unite parliament, with seemingly no majority for any course of action other than opposing no deal. so let's be clear, what is most important, the prime minister is failing the people of our country. this agreement document bears all the hallmarks of monty python's dead parrot. it is bereft of life. the current deal has zero chance of passing through the commons and we know, of course, that the commons would never vote for a ruinous no deal outcome, remain is now the only viable option. i fully support the prime minister and i back this deal. i wouldn't be standing here if i didn't. and i'm afraid to say

to the noble lord we will not be holding a second referendum. it has resulted in headlines across europe, most dramatic of parts being in ireland, where the headline is dublin's victory, london's chaos, and the humiliation of our country. how can it be presented as being in the national interest to have brought about such a circumstance? i don't agree with my noble friend's assessment. what we have done is agreed the principle of the uk's smooth and orderly exit from the eu as set in the withdrawal agreement, and agreed broad terms of our future relationship. we are delivering on the result of the referendum, we will be leaving the eu and be developing a strong partnership going forward with the eu, which will last for decades to come. the people of this country voted by a clear majority to reclaim democratically accountable

self—government. is it not now incumbent upon those who speak and vote on their behalf in parliament to do likewise and to reject this deal which fails to allow us the governmental autonomy which people of our country ought to have? how can the government possibly contemplate trying to take this true parliament in the absolute opposite of what the people voted for? rather then put it back to the people and let them decide? i fear that my misgivings about what might happen in this process have been proven all too true. the political declaration made is meaningless, worse still it's laced with the cyanide of the backstop. my lords, the prime minister's statement speaks of bringing the country back together. this is a credible and achievable aim. how will it be brought about?

i do believe it's a credible and achievable and added some to the prime minister has been focused on. she is delivering brexit, we have a deal and we will be bringing that, people will support and bring the country back together and have a strong relationship with the eu going forward. i have been pushed into an edge and into no man's land, this is hardly acceptable and not an acceptable way to protect. parliament does have the power, including the opportunity to submit the duty to take back control of this whole disastrous saga, including the option of a people's vote, giving the people a final say on whether they want to remain in the european union because all the alternatives before us at the present time are far inferior to that. well, i think i have been quite clear we will not be having a second referendum, we have had the people's vote, we had a people's vote,

and we are now delivering on that, the noble lord is actually right, the withdrawal agreement and a limitation on the treaty will be brought forward to the house and there will be opportunity for both the house of commons and this house to scrutinize and discuss it and it will be for parliament to pass that bill. lady evans. and that's it from me for now but do join me on bbc parliament on friday night at ”pm for our roundup of an extraordinary week at westminster. we'll be taking a look back at the last few days in the commons and the lords, and i'll be talking to professor vernon bogdanor and asking him if this is the most divided parliament ever. we'll also be finding out why there's a row over renaming the welsh assembly. dojoin me then, but for now from me, alicia mccarthy, goodbye. hello there. the to the pores and a quiet note,

but quiet is not necessarily mean right. —— week that began the drenching downpours. you should slowly brighten up a little bit later on that sunshine amounts will va ry later on that sunshine amounts will vary depending on where we, most places starting at under a sheet of carbon is a mist and fog patches as well. northern islands of decent sunshine and then as we go through the day, parts of islands, the north of wales, the coast of devon and cornwall should see a little sunshine. temperatures i2 cornwall should see a little sunshine. temperatures 12 to 14 degrees that will once again that turn quite murky and misty woods and fog patches as we had to friday night, into the early hours of saturday. temperatures will not drop too far, six to 12 degrees. as we go through the weekend, we will peel that cloud back westwards. increasing amounts of sunshine. it stay quite breezy and then into next week, temperatures will stop the drop. —— style to drop. —— start to drop.

welcome to bbc news, broadcasting to viewers in north america and around the globe. my name is mike embley. our top stories: despite a string of ministerial resignations and moves to unseat her as leader prime minister may insists she will see her brexit deal through. i believe with every fibre of my being that the course i have set out is the right one for our country and all our people. and european leaders claim they won't renegotiate the draft brexit deal — even if it's rejected by the british parliament. awaiting verdicts on charges of genocide, two former leaders of the khmer rouge on trial in cambodia. the world's most expensive painting by a living artist — $80 million for this work by david hockney.