to make steps can i and others take to make sure the government complies with the motion before the vote we have next tuesday? i will hear on the point of order from the leader of the house, andrea leadsom. thank you. we have tested the opinion of the house price on this very serious subject. we've listened carefully and in light of the expressed will of the house, we will publish the final and full advice provided by the attorney general to cabinet but recognising the very serious constitutional issues that this raises, i have referred the matter to the privileges committee to consider the implications of the humble address. lam implications of the humble address. i am grateful to the ? right honourable and learned gentleman for his point of order and the leader for her response. some members are asking when. i had intended to say

that i intended ministers to comply with the verdict of the house. if the leader wants to offer a further particular on that point now, or after the point of order, she can do so after the point of order, she can do so but if not i would expect to have full information on that matter provided to the house very soon. firstly, keir starmer. on that question, could the speaker advise me what steps we can take to ensure that the processed outlined is completed by next tuesday, when we vote 7 completed by next tuesday, when we vote? it would seem to me to be unimaginable that it would not be. unimaginable that it would not be. of course i will hear from the leader. the government will respond tomorrow, mr speaker. i'm very grateful to the leader for the clarity of that confirmation. and i think that satisfies the curiosity

of members? developments in the house of commons at westminster. the government has now listened to the view of the house and has backed down, in effect, and will publish in full the legal advice given by the attorney general to the government on the brexit deal that the prime minister will be again presenting to the house this evening. ministers didn't want to reveal the advice in full, they had resisted but they have been forced by the house of commons to accept that it will be published. as we heard from the speaker rather pointedly, he expects this to be published before the big vote ta kes this to be published before the big vote takes place next week. the leader of the house andrea leadsom making clear that there would be a statement tomorrow clarifying the timing. vicki young, we have to underline how significant the decision is. yes, it seems incredibly significant that after that the government has decided to back down, begging the question why

they didn't do it in the first place. they made their arguments strongly, saying it was setting a precedent that future governments wouldn't want to go with because they feel that ministers and the government should be allowed to have confidential legal advice from their most senior lawyer and it doesn't necessarily have to be shared. andrea leadsom, the leader of the house, referred it to a privileges committee. whether she means before they publish, because she says she is concerned about the president being set. earlier, ken clarke, the father of the house and most experienced mp there, talked about this compromise, a sensible compromise as he put it, whereby mps could read the legal advice on privy council turns, essentially privately. whether they go down that route, i don't know. it seems like andrea leadsom have said they will publish but she has put in the caveat of referring to the committee. we'll speak to the

government to find out what they mean. the potential in occasions are enormous, aren't they, because clearly there was a lot of sensitivity around the legal advice and ministers, citing all sorts of reasons including national security, we re reasons including national security, were obviously worried about the consequences. let's go back to the house. delivers on the brexit priorities the country voted for and the debate and vote ahead of us are the debate and vote ahead of us are the next crucial steps we must take to make sure we deliver on the whole of the referendum, and in the best interests of the uk. the prime minister's proposal delivers on all of those things that those who voted to leave the european union were looking for, mr speaker, meaning we are taking back control of our borders, our laws and money. we are leaving the common agricultural policy, and leaving the common fisheries policy. and importantly, the united kingdom will be able to

undertake full trade agreements with the rest of the world, which come in many places, is growing far faster than economies in the european union. at the same time the prime minister's proposal seeks to ensure that we continue with a deep and special relationship with our eu friends and neighbours. not only for economic trade, but also in security and other areas that are of great value to all our nations. this has beena value to all our nations. this has been a challenging journey and compromises have had to be made on all sides however two things are certain. first, that the prime minister's deal is the only deal on the table. and second, that it means we will leave the european union on the 29th of march, 2019. a point of order? the business of the house ?

i'm grateful, i think the leader of the house is providing the context for what she intends to say. the honourable lady for great grimsby is in an animated state and is expressing her decisive action with that but i think a modest forbearance would be seemly. leader of the house. i'm grateful to you, mr speaker, for me allowing me to set the context. think of this as an introduction. i believe their withdrawal agreement and political declaration for the route to a good future relationship with our european friends and neighbours and therefore i believe we must support therefore i believe we must support the deal and continue our efforts to deliver on the will of the people of the united kingdom. before my honourable friend opens the meaningful vote debate itself, this motion first seeks to set the framework within which the debate

will take place. the government has listened to views across the house on how best to govern the arrangements on the debate of their withdrawal agreement and future framework. i'm grateful to colleagues on all sides for the collaborative discussions that have taken collaborative discussions that have ta ken place collaborative discussions that have taken place in advance of tabling the motion on the order paper today. i'm also very grateful for the contributions of the select committees of the house, whose views and recommendations have been insightful. i pay particular tribute to the exiting the european union committee, chaired by the memberfor leeds central, and the procedure committee, chaired by my honourable friend, the member for broxbourne, on the procedure in the house that should apply for this is debate. the government has carefully considered the procedure committee's recommendations in bringing forward the business off the house motion. i hope that the house agrees that the

motion on the order paper today is reflective of the vast majority of recommendations in that report. the parameters for this debate will enable what the committee itself called a momentous decision for parliament and the country. it's absolutely vital that we ensure the substantive issues are properly debated so that members of the house can take an informed decision in the national interest. to return briefly to the amendments in the name of the memberfor to the amendments in the name of the member for eltham, to the amendments in the name of the memberfor eltham, i to the amendments in the name of the member for eltham, i would gently say to the honourable member and the house that the motion in the prime minister's name, as tabled, provides for a full five days of debate, as recommended by the exiting the european union committee, and the procedure committee, following their consultations and evidence, taken across the house, on what provision should best govern proceedings. the

timeframe being provided strikes the optimal balance between ensuring full and proper scrutiny and debate on such an important decision and vote, and allowing the time for the legislation that will give effect to that decision to pass through parliament by the 29th of march, 2019. the government has been determined to make sure that the house is able to carry out full scrutiny and play its essential role as we move towards leaving the eu, and the motion tabled reflects that. should the house agree the motion today, the five days of debate ahead of us, build upon the many important opportunities house has had to consider eu exit so far. we've had 37 days of debate as parliament agreed the eu withdrawal act. there have been regular statements and opportunities to question ministers including over ten hours at the

dispatch box by my honourable friend, the prime minister, injust the last 12 sitting days alone. andrea leadsom the leader of the house of commons setting up the context for the debate that is going to begin. some discussion about what may happen in the event of a loss for the government on tuesday but we aren't there yet. five days of debate starting today. we had some of the turbulence, with the government being heavily criticised for not releasing its legal advice in full. now it will have to do so. it has been compelled to do so by the commons over the last 20 minutes. i want to step out into the central lobby of the houses of parliament. the northern ireland secretary, karen bradley, is in pa rliament‘s central lobby. . thanks forjoining us. can i have your reaction firstly to the verdict of the house on the legal advice that you as cabinet members have seen? clearly disappointing that the

house has taken this decision. i think it is unprecedented. the attorney general yesterday gave a statement to the house for over two hours, making himself available, giving frank and candid answers. it was unprecedented, highly unusual for the attorney general to make that kind of statement to the house. clearly the house has spoken and the leader of the house has said we will publish the advice over the next 24—hour is. we are moving on to the debate, we have five days for mps to consider their position and the time is now for cool heads, for real consideration of the implications of the vote next week. i want to see us deliver on the vote of the british people, i want to see us leave the european union on the 29th of march next year in an orderly way and the only way to do that is by backing this deal. to be clear on the timing, you mentioned in the next

24—hour is the legal advice would be published in full. the leader has said it will be published tomorrow. i can't say exactly when but that information was given to the commons. that's interesting. what do you think about the potential effect on the mindset of mps when they see that advice in full? you were in the position where you have seen it in full, with all of its sensitivity. what could you say to our viewers about the likely impact? people need to wait and see it. the attorney gave a very full statement yesterday to the house and took questions from across the floor and gave candid and frank answers, not shying away from the legal position. as a cabinet minister having considered the legal advice i believe the safeguards that are in place, the way that we can unilaterally deal as the united kingdom with concerns people have, i believe that this deal delivers on the result of the referendum. it

delivers on taking back control of our borders in a way that safeguards jobs and security. people must listen to their constituents and people up and down the country. i hear from people all the time saying they just want us to hear from people all the time saying theyjust want us to get on with it, theyjust want us to get on with it, they want us to deliver the deal. they want to know that safeguards our in place but they don't want the government and parliament to let down the british people who voted so decisively to leave the eu and that is what i'm determined we will do. another piece of business before the debate begins. your colleague, the former attorney general dominic grieve is trying to change the standing orders of the house so that the house of commons in effect can be in the house of commons in effect can beina the house of commons in effect can be in a position where it can instruct the government what to do if there is a defeat for mrs may next tuesday and she comes back with another plan. is that your understanding and how would you

explain the attempt? there is an amendment and there is some interpretation around it. let's listen to what dominic grieve says about his amendment. i'm looking forward to listening to his explanation. i'd say the government is putting five days of debate forward , is putting five days of debate forward, giving all mps and opportunity to debate it. it is a time for cool heads, time to consider the position and think about delivering on the vote of the british people in an orderly way. there's only one way to do that, by voting for this deal. there is no other guarantee under any other option. a challenging political landscape that all politicians are in but in government it is a very different place. you know the prime minister very well. how would you describe her mindset? she acts in the national interest, that's what she always does, she puts the country first and that is what she continues to do. that's why she's worked tirelessly to get to the

point where we have a deal to withdraw from the eu in a way that is good for the whole united kingdom so that we can leave as the uk together. untangling 45 years of economic and regulatory relationship was never going to be easy but this is the prime minister who has put the country first and will continue to do that. i would say to my collea g u es to do that. i would say to my colleagues and friends in the commons, listen to your constituents and people on the streets, spend some time meeting people. the people i meet say that they want us to deliver brexit and move to the next stage of our relationship with the eu, and our opportunities for the uk on the global stage. when you present that message to your colleagues, there are dozens of them who think the compromises are just too excessive, that the prime minister has given too much ground to the eu and they aren't in a position where they think the deal isa position where they think the deal is a good dealfor the

position where they think the deal is a good deal for the country. position where they think the deal is a good dealfor the country. what do you say to your colleagues privately when they convey that to you? privately! i'm not speaking privately, i'm on a tv camera! i keep hearing this criticism, journalists say all the time that we've given too much away about the european union wanted over £100 million from us. that isn't the situation. we've been accused that we are giving away to the european union. a few months ago you would have told me there was no way that we'd have a deal that had a customs arrangement which had a separate arrangement which had a separate arrangement for northern ireland. that isn't on the table. this is a good dealfor the that isn't on the table. this is a good deal for the united that isn't on the table. this is a good dealfor the united kingdom that will mean we deliver on the referendum result and i say to my colleagues, look at this in the round, look at the future, look at the opportunities and let's get on and deliver what the british people asked us to deliver injune, 2016..

thanks forjoining us. we will go back to the house in a second. it is very important, what is happening. dominic grieve, a former attorney general, presenting to the house. the debate hasn't even started yet. five days of debate which haven't started yet. there is this crucial contribution by dominic grieve which is about getting more powers for the commons to instruct the government to behave in a certain way if the deal doesn't go through next week. that's the kind of sequence we are in. let's go back to the chamber. the speaker is taking a point of order but i think mr grieve is on his feet. the amendments are there to introduce more flexibility into the timing of the debate so that backbench aim pays “

the debate so that backbench aim pays —— backbench mps can get their thoughts on record. this is an argument about how the debate will run. mps caught at the tail end of debate, their time is cut to three orfour minutes for a debate, their time is cut to three or four minutes for a speech, barely as long as a press release and often they are discouraged from taking interventions, which turns the chamber into a recording studio of a series of statements. i think that would be unfortunate that in a debate of this importance, if that happened. i asked the government to bear that in happened. i asked the government to bearthat in mind happened. i asked the government to bear that in mind as the debate goes on and not deny backbenchers the chance to put our views on record but i will not be dividing on the house —— dividing the house but i think that the point is made. i'm grateful to the gentlemen for making his statements clear. mr oliver letwin. my honourable friend and i haven't always agreed as we've gone through the process of the lengthy discussions of the brexit process

but we both appeared before the procedure committee about the proceedings that we are about to undertake. and when he and i and others came to discuss the effects of section 13, in which many of us we re of section 13, in which many of us were involved in trying to find compromises that would make it workable it became clear that there isa workable it became clear that there is a significant issue. i want to explain to my honourable friends and those on the benches who think that this is an abstruse amendment, why this is an abstruse amendment, why this is an abstruse amendment, why this is actually critical moment. dominic grieve sitting next to oliver letwin as part of this motion. section 13-8 of the withdrawal act specifies that if, by the 21st of january, whoever is then the 21st of january, whoever is then the prime minister, of whatever is then the government, and i hope it will be the current prime minister of the current government, may be

compelled to come to the house of commons and explain that they believe it is impossible to reach an agreement with the eu. section 13—8 then specifies that a motion should be put to the house," in neutral terms. " this is a very strange and arcane parliamentary term, but it has a meaning, specified in section 24b of the standing order of the house of commons, which in our constitution was described as the nearest thing we have to be constitution. what it says," whereas, in the opinion of the speaker or the chair, a motion of the house or committee has considered the matter, it is

expressed in neutral terms, no amendments to it may be tabled. " this amendment which my friend and i have put forward would do is to cancel the standing order 24b as it would then apply so the house would have a chance to amend the motion put by a government which it concluded could not reach a deal with the eu. that is seen by some as a kind of instruction to the government. many of us hope, i shall be voting for the government's deal on tuesday, many hope the government will reach a deal. many hope that evenif will reach a deal. many hope that even if we don't reach it on tuesday we will reach it subsequently under the guidance of the government in some way or another. i believe that under those circumstances a norwegian arrangement is the next best step. but whatever we may may not do we could arrive on the 21st of january with a statement that no

deal can be reached, and it may be that there is across the house somewhere a majority in favour of somewhere a majority in favour of some solution which would avoid us leaving without a deal. for those of us leaving without a deal. for those of us who believe that leaving without a deal would be a catastrophe for the country, it seems right that we should express that majority if it arises. the only way to do that is to provide for the motion to be amended, and that is the reason for this amendment. it sounds very technical but potentially very significant. the leader of the house, who is always courteous, and i pay house, who is always courteous, and i pay tribute to her for that, has made some comments and i feel i should reply to them. this deal is not in the interests of the scots or indeed of anyone in the united kingdom. the last two years have shown that the promises made by the leave campaign are not deliverable at all significant analysis shows that the deal is going to have a massive hit on the british economy,

especially onjobs massive hit on the british economy, especially on jobs and living standards of our constituents. the loss of freedom of movement will in particular affect the scottish economy. what i would say is that it is not deal or no deal, there is a third option, which is no brexit. today, as has been widely reported, the advocate general of the court of justice of the european union has given his opinion in the case of whiteman and others, including myself, against the secretary of state for exiting the european union, and that opinion has said that article 50 can be unilaterally revoked. i wish to suggest that this ruling might have some impact on today's proceedings and i'll explain why ina today's proceedings and i'll explain why in a moment. hopefully i'll get the courtesy of a hearing, as others did. i should make clear that the scottish national party will support the amendments in the name of the

right honourable member for beaconsfield, and we applaud his efforts and those of others to ensure that democracy is not steam—rolled ensure that democracy is not steam— rolled by ensure that democracy is not steam—rolled by this government and that parliament has a meaningful say in relation to what may happen in the future. otherwise we are generally happy with the time allocated for debate and we are pleased that the uk government has paid attention to the letter from the leaders of the opposition parties calling for amendments to be decided on before a final substantive vote, that being the usual practice in the house. however we think the uk government should consider pushing back the meaningful vote until we have a finaljudgment of the grand table of the court of justice of the european union, in the case i mention. most prized to the case i mention. most prized to the uk government that this is pending because they've been fighting it tooth and nail for the la st fighting it tooth and nail for the last eight months. i'm proud to say that myself and other scottish snp parliamentarians, two scottish

greens and two scottish mps have triumphed in getting the case to the european court of justice triumphed in getting the case to the european court ofjustice and the ruling that the grand chamber is likely to follow. the reason we did thatis likely to follow. the reason we did that is to make sure that parliamentarians in this house, they should know that when it comes to the meaningful vote, isn't come as the meaningful vote, isn't come as the government would have us believe come a deal or no deal, but we have the chance of staying in the european union on the current conditions, a rather good deal, and thatis conditions, a rather good deal, and that is what the advocate general said today. in 80% of cases, the court follows him. they will rule quickly and it is thought it will be before christmas. will the government considered postponing the meaning for vote until we know the decision of the court ofjustice? it is no surprise to them that they decision was pending. the snp referring to the european court of justice opinion which again is seen by many as a very significant one,

which, they say, offers the option for the uk to unilaterally cancel brexit, by cancelling article 50. there's a lot of debate about that. i'm joined by shadow brexit secretary, sir keir starmer.. thanks for joining secretary, sir keir starmer.. thanks forjoining us. what is the significance of the vote? it is very significant because it is an historic first for government ministers to be found in contempt. it should never have come to this. an order was made three weeks ago that the attorney general‘s advice should be disclosed and the government has simply defined the order. i don't know what they expected the house to do because there's no point in the house passing binding votes and binding orders if the government says they won't comply. in a sense i think it isa won't comply. in a sense i think it is a great shame that it has come to this. what is the next step? to see what the government says tomorrow morning. they've accepted that they are going to publish the full legal

advice. obviously what we want to stop is any suggestion that they will do so after the vote next tuesday because the whole point of seeking this advice is to inform the debate that's about to start. we'll see what the government says but if they are going to suggest that they will publish at a future date, that isn't going to be acceptable. the secretary of state for northern ireland, speaking a short while ago, said she understood that the advice would be published in the next 24—hour is. would be published in the next 24-hour is. she knows more than i do. this is the second time parliament has voted on this. the government has been found to be in co nte m pt of government has been found to be in contempt of parliament and so i think they should publish straightaway and within the next 24—hour is at the least. straightaway and within the next 24-hour is at the least. the assumption in some quarters is that the advice contains information of the advice contains information of the kind of sensitivity that will have a big impact on how mps will see the deal. i don't know because i don't know what is in the advice but we had a strong debate three weeks

ago about the rights and wrongs, the exceptional circumstances in which legal advice can be disclosed. at the end of the debate the government decided not to oppose the order that the legal advice be disclosed. we'll see what is in the advice and then we will be wiser about what the government was told about the arrangement that it once other mps to sign up to. how sympathetic are you to the attempts by dominic grieve and others, and we also heard from hilary benn, about changing how the house works, that it may give the house works, that it may give the house works, that it may give the house different powers in the next few weeks and months? what's going on here today, whether it is the vote we have just had, dominic grieve and hilary benn's amendments, there's a battle going on between parliament and the executive. for two years the prime minister and cabinet have been pushing away parliament and saying we aren't prepared to take your views into account and now parliament is

fighting back and saying i'm sorry, that's not good enough. on an issue of this importance the views of mps have to be heard and where there is a majority against the government, it must speak. i know that you need to go and vote but the five days of debate, are you detecting, outside party political obsessions, any move, any shift in the mood of the house? there's great speculation about the numbers here in parliament. i think everybody is assuming that the prime minister will struggle to win the vote next tuesday. i'll wait and see. we'll ca ke tuesday. i'll wait and see. we'll cake making our arguments but we need to wait until next tuesday to know the answer to the question, whether the deal has gone through, and if not, by how many has she lost the vote? we'll let you go. we'll be

keeping an eye on that tally when it comes up. keeping an eye on that tally when it comes up. i mention dominic grieve because he has been outlining in the commons the amendment that he is tabling which would give mps the opportunity to propose and vote on alternative outcomes if theresa may's brexit steel is voted down. the vote is the one taking place right now. this is what dominic grieve have to say earlier. in june, issues arose about how the house should proceed in the event of the government motion being rejected. as at that time, the prime minister represented to me that if the motions were to be made amendable, the motions to be considered thereafter, it would come in some way come interfere with her ability to negotiate which was why, having reflected on her view, i took the

decision to vote against my own amendment when it was presented to this house because i listen to what she had to say to me. but the reality remains, that we have an u nsatisfa ctory reality remains, that we have an unsatisfactory procedure to resolve differences of opinion in this house if, and obviously it isn't if, we can to the point of the government does not succeed on its motion. the opportunity exists this afternoon to the point where the government does not succeed on its motion. the opportunity exists this afternoon particular that anomaly. as was rightly said by the speaker for the opposition, it is contrary to all sensible practice and i have to say, slightly disrespectful the role of this jose way we have situation where we have an amendable motions of the consideration at a time when parliament should be focused on trying to find means of resolving

outstanding issues. it is for that reason, mr speaker, i put forward this amendment which would in very simple terms queue that problem and provide reassurance can even before we start on these really important debates that whatever the outcome next week we have a means of continuing the debate thereafter if we need to, in a way that must be in conformity with what any right—thinking member of this house would be the procedure and processed to adopt. that was the scene just a while ago in the house of commons, thatis while ago in the house of commons, that is dominic grieve, the conservative former attorney general who has brought this extra motion, and amendment before the house today because he wants the change some of the rules of the house of commons of the rules of the house of commons of the house of commons in certain circumstances can have a view on what has been proposed to it rather than what we heard they earlier, a neutral kind of noting, or a neutral

acknowledgements, taking note of something, getting that out of the wa ke something, getting that out of the wake so the house can say, actually we think this should happen. that is basically the direction of travel here. what will happen in the vote? the vote is taking place. lots of mps have been through the lobby of the ready and are finding back into the ready and are finding back into the chamber from the central lobby which is nearest to us here. and then drive to the back behind the speaker ‘s chair, they can come in through the lobbies they are on either side. the aye lobby and the noe lobby. what is your take on what has been going on? it sounds like procedure, i know it is there as a timetabling notion, not something we would be normally interested in but it could be significant if theresa may's deal and that a vote next tuesday goes against her. this is a

wrangle that has been going on for months and months and months and it is about is what happens if the government can't get its vision of brexit through. who takes control in that circumstance, if you like? what this amendment is trying to do is say if the deal falls next tuesday, the government has 21 days to come back. it would make a statement saying what it is going to do next, what dominic grieve and others want is at that price for parliament to amend that motion, not simply accept it, give an indication of what they would like to happen next. that is why it is controversial. there are some on the brexit side of the argument to feel this is an attempt to somehow soft and brexit or even stop it completely and try to get even through on something like another referendum, for example, on different arrangement such the uk staying in the european economic area. this could be crucial if it comes to the stage where theresa may

can't get her version through. i spoke to the dup earlier, they, unlike the previous vote, are going to back the government in all of this. everybody is predicting it is going to be pretty close. i've spoken to several conservative mps this afternoon who are prepared to rebel against the government on all of this. some of them have said they haven't had that much attention from party whips and some of them and interpreting it as the government not being bothered if this goes through or not. we will have to wait and see. a government defeat is never something ministers relish and this coming head of theresa may's standing up to start making her case again to mps to back her deal. some people characterising this particular vote as a kind of parliament or house of commons against the executive. is that a

fair characterisation? one senior conservative backbencher told me, if we get to the stage is deadlocked, the dealfails, that we get to the stage is deadlocked, the deal fails, that is an obvious way through, that is no clear plan b. way through, that is no clear plan b, his feeling was the front benches, jeremy corbyn and his team, the ministerial team, they wouldn't be prepared to work together to find a way through all this. he thinks thatis a way through all this. he thinks that is the majority in the house of commons the something like what they call a norway option, the youth cake staying in the european economic area. he thinks this is a way of mps being able to work together and making it clear to the government what they think should happen next, the next step. there are some who are saying although this would be very u nfortu nate for are saying although this would be very unfortunate for the government, to lose a vote, what it allows ministers to do is to say to the brexiteers who are threatening to that belt, hang on a minute, you've got to be careful what you wish for. a free vote down theresa may's deal

you are adding to chaos and no one can predict what happens now in. one of the possibilities is you end up with another referendum or you end up with another referendum or you end up with a soft brexit. it occurred, just could focus the minds of those who want brexit and wanted to happen and they wanted to happen soon come it could focus their minds and get them behind theresa may. but that is high stakes for the government, very high stakes for the government, very high stakes. we will see whether those conservative mps i spoke to, there were 16 tories who signed this dominic grieve amendment, another minister told me he were others who we re minister told me he were others who were prepared to vote against the government, that might be enough but it is going to be pretty close. you say high stakes, vicky, karen bradley was talking to worse earlier and urging colleagues of hers to spend time over the weekend, talk to your party officials locally, talk

to your constituency workers, talk to your constituency workers, talk to people in your constituencies about what they want. in other words, it is a repeated appeal of people to think carefully about the people to think carefully about the people at home, if you like, and what they want away from the more tribal instincts of westminster. you can see why. standing here today, it has been packed. all mps i hear on a three line whip, they have to be here ready to vote at any time. we've had to government defeats this afternoon. the atmosphere feels volatile. they are trying to basically get mps to look beyond this place, the westminster village as it is called, and to think broadly about brexit, about what it meant, what the referendum vote meant, what the referendum vote meant, to try and work out what the best dealfor their meant, to try and work out what the best deal for their constituents is. if they were to speak to the business communities, many businesses would be saying, we desperately need some kind of

certainty and this deal would give them that certainty. it gives them this transition period of 20 months or which could be extended in order to prepare for what is coming next. there are so many businesses who say that. for some tories, that's not enough because they don't feel this is brexit, they think it is brexit in name only, they don't feel it represents the referendum because it means we are closely tied to the eu. the appeal by ministers who are on board here is to say to them, go home and speak to those people whose livelihoods depend on there being a smooth trading relationship with the rest of the eu. that is why a customs union, a customs arrangement is important about. they want them to think about that bigger picture. i suppose the best theresa may can hope for, given that almost 100 tory mps, almost a third of her party,

have said they will vote against her deal. what they are trying to do at this point is slightly damaged limitation, get those numbers down toa limitation, get those numbers down to a point where they might be able to a point where they might be able to bring it back for another vote later on, maybe having gone back to the eu. as is awesome brexiteers are saying, it'll be defeated on tuesday, they feel she can go back to be you and say, that is the strength of opinion in the house of commons, doesn't go through, it didn't go through mainly because of this idea of a backstop because it keeps as too closely aligned, treats northern ireland differently, you've got to somehow try and change that. that is quite a big ask and people in brussels says not going to happen. that is what some brexiteers think are going to happen. but those in the labour party and others who wa nt in the labour party and others who want some of them to stay in the eu, they are pushing for another referendum, if this amendment goes

through this afternoon it gives them a better chance of having that ultimate aim. it means, if the deal is voted down next tuesday, no one can see a clear way through. that is what this amendment is trying to deal with, to say that parliament can be much more in the driving seat and make clear its opinion on what should happen next. their weathers, vicky, i'm just going to tell those viewers joining vicky, i'm just going to tell those viewersjoining us, it is 5:41pm, we live in the house of commons for yet another significant vote being for this breaks the debate gets under way. we have five days of debate on theresa may's brexit plans. the payments will open the debate, it should have been starting a few hours ago really according to the traditional commons timetable, it has not because there have been several significant votes taking place. in one of them, the government has been forced to publish its legal advice on brexit

in full, a didn't want to do that but it has been forced to do so by the house and that is a very significant development. it could help big impact on the brexit vote next tuesday. this those we're waiting for, is an amendment on the standing orders which allows the house of commons to have an opinion, to insist on the government coming forward with different plans on brexit if mrs may doesn't get her way next week. that is only way that of two or three weeks before the government needs to bring back another plan if they are defeated next week and dominic grieve and quite a few others want the house of commons to be in a position where it can more less insist on a course of action. this is therefore come as vicky was telling us, potentially massively significant moment when we get this result because if the rules have changed, if the standing orders

are changed, its army and the house of commons will be in a different position if theresa may doesn't get her way next tuesday. the result will be eagerly awaited by the front benches and every single member of the house of commons. i'm looking at the house of commons. i'm looking at the chamber, vicky, and no sign of the chamber, vicky, and no sign of the tell us yet but we can't be too far off this vote. they have said it will be at quarter to. we're trying to get pictures of the chamber back on here. it is packed chamber which on here. it is packed chamber which on days like this means the vote longer because in our system they have to walk through, literally every mp has to walk through a lobby. there are 620 of them around today. it takes a long time. that is why this takes about 15 minutes normally but as you say, this is

quite a big moment. there's even been some mps going round today saying if this goes through this could be the end of brexit. i think thatis could be the end of brexit. i think that is overstating it, but it could mean that parliament has a much greater say in what happens if theresa may's voter doesn't go through. not legally. legally, it wouldn't be binding on the government but a bit like yesterday with the legal advice, that is a difference between the locality and the political reality. the political reality of the situation where hundreds of mps have voted for something and that not been taken into consideration by a government would be unprecedented. that is why this is important. the brexiteers are saying none of this matters, they can amend emotion. i do think you have to take into account the political situation. if there was a clear majority in the house of commons for something to happen, the government would have to take that

into consideration. this is mps preparing for a plan b, preparing for what might happen if theresa may doesn't get away and we will hear her ina doesn't get away and we will hear her in a minute making that case why her in a minute making that case why her deal is the best and only option. if it won't go through next tuesday, what happens next? the government doesn't want to talk about their plan b because they are focused on plan a. others are and i think that is what is happening. we go seniors backbenchers looking at how this can work. this amendment is cross— party, how this can work. this amendment is cross—party, it has labour, snp, liberal democrats, all of them saying we can do something about this. order, order. the eyes to the right, three june 21. the nose, 299. a very, very significant result.

321. the nose to the left, 299. the ayes have it, the ayes have it. this is one of the biggest milestones in the brexit process. vicky, what is your take? the brexit process. vicky, what is yourtake? iam the brexit process. vicky, what is your take? i am surprised by the numbers given we know the dup were switching to supporting the government on this one. they told me just before the vote. i think the government would have been a bit more confident of getting that through but that implies a large number of conservative rebels are there. a government defeat by 20 votes. we know that 16 conservatives had signed that motion that amendment. the prime minister now getting to her feet. i beg to move the motion on the

order paper in my name and those of my right honourable friends. at the start of five days of debate that will set the course our country takes for decades to come, it is worth taking a moment to reflect on how we got here. when the treaty of rome was signed in1957, when the treaty of rome was signed in 1957, the united kingdom stood apart. it was 15 years later at the third attempt that we joined what was then the european economic community. ever since then, our membership has been a contested matter. in the first referendum in 1975, the british people voted to stay in. but almost a third of those

who voted wanted to leave. indeed, there are those in this chamber who campaigned to leave at that time. as the eec ever altered into the european union of increasing political depth, the british people doubts about our membership grew. ultimately, membership of any union that involves the pooling of sovereignty can only be sustained with a consent of the people. in the referendum of 2016, the biggest democratic exercise in our history, the british public withdrew that consent. they confirmed the honourable lady has lost their size. i hope she will compound by opposing

the section 30 when the scottish government wants it. she should respect the democracy she is talking about, it applies to scotland to. cani about, it applies to scotland to. can i see to the honourable gentleman, asi can i see to the honourable gentleman, as i said, i've just referred to the fact that membership of any union that involves the pooling of sovereignty can only be sustained by the consent of the people. in 2016 that consent was withdrawn by the british public in relation to our membership of the eu. in 2014, when the people of scotland were asked to remain in the uk, they voted to stay in the united kingdom. as i've just repeated, in the referendum of 2016, the british people withdrew that consent and they confirmed that choice a year later by voting overwhelmingly for parties that committed to delivering

brexit. the referendum was a vote to bring our eu membership to an end and to create a new role for our country in the world. and to deliver on that vote, we need to deliver a brexit that respects the decision of the british people. brexit that takes back control of our borders, laws and many, the brexit that set ourselves on course for a better future outside the eu as a globally trading nation, in charge of our own destiny and seizing the opportunities of trade with some of the fastest—growing and most do make economies across the world. i'm grateful for the prime minister for giving way, but having read this agreement it seems to me we will not be able to enter into a trade agreements because they going to be stuck with the same rule base we have in the eu. this my right honourable prime minister agree? i don't take my honourable friend would be surprised to say i don't

agree with the analysis she has given in relation to the agreement. we have will have an independent trade policy, this is a specific issue that we look at where we were putting forward our own proposals in the stomach in relation to our future economic partnership with the eu. i heard somebody from the labour benches saying, when will we be able to discuss our trade? mr speaker, this will only be a moment of opportunity if we in this house can find a way to deliver brexit that begins to bring our country back together. that means, protecting the easy trading relationship that supportjust in easy trading relationship that support just in time easy trading relationship that supportjust in time supply easy trading relationship that support just in time supply chains and jobs that depend on them. the security that keeps the safe, the

progress we have made in northern ireland. and the rights of citizens here in the uk and across the european union. i will give way. here in the uk and across the european union. iwill give way. i thank the prime minister forgiving wafers that she spoke of security cooperation yesterday asked the home secretary whether we would be left more safe or less safe as a result of this deal, he couldn't answer the question. he couldn't guarantee we would have access to the crucial database that would have access to the crucial data base that ensures would have access to the crucial database that ensures we have information on terrorist, paedophiles and other criminals trying to cross our border. that is the reality of the deal she has put before us. as he knows full well the political declaration of the security section of that goes well beyond any security arrangement that the european union has with any other country. and it makes clear that in the next stage of negotiations, we will be negotiating

how we can have access to the very elements that our covered by that. perhaps you'd like to look at the political declaration. the reference to those elements is indeed in the political declaration. i'm sorry, if he says from a sedentary position they are not, i have to say to him, he may not understand the elements that lie behind them. i would make some progress. to achieve all of those things i have just set out in terms of protecting our trading relationship, it requires some compromise. i know there are some in this house and in the country who would prefer a closer relationship with the european union than the one lam with the european union than the one i am proposing. with the european union than the one lam proposing. who with the european union than the one i am proposing. who prefer the relationship we currently have an wa nt relationship we currently have an want on the referendum which they

hoped would overturn the decision we took in 2016? although i profoundly disagree, they are arguing for what they believe is right that our country and i respect that. the hard truth is we will not settle this issue and bring our country together that way. i ask them to think what it would say to the 52% who came out to vote leave, in many cases for the first time in decades if the decision were ignored. what would it do to our politics? there are others, i will take a significant numberof others, i will take a significant number of interventions but i will make some progress at this stage. these are important point because there are those who want a closer relationship with eee but they do need to recognise the message that was need to recognise the message that was given by the 52% who voted to leave the european union. their are

others in this house who would prefer a more distant relationship than the one i am proposing and although i don't agree i know they are arguing for what they think is best that our future and i respect that too. the hard truth is also we will not settle this issue and bring our country together if in delivering brexit we do not protect the trade and security cooperation on which so manyjobs and lives depend completely ignoring the views of the 48%. we can shut our eyes to these hard truths and carry on debating between these extremes for months to come all we can accept the only solution that will endure is one that addresses the concerns of those who voted leave while reassuring those who voted remain. i will take a numberof reassuring those who voted remain. i will take a number of interventions ina minute. will take a number of interventions in a minute. this argument has gone on long enough, it is corrosive to our politics and life depends on

compromise. i am gratefulto our politics and life depends on compromise. i am grateful to the prime minister for giving way. my constituency split down the middle during the referendum but can i explain to the prime minister the crux of the problem she has next week. she has set as a benchmark on security cooperation things being better than the relationship the eu has with other countries. my constituencies who voted for leave, voted for a better future. with the deal she has negotiated she has brought those two groups together but against her deal. brought those two groups together but against her deallj brought those two groups together but against her deal. i say to the honourable gentleman, this deal provides that good security cooperation while protecting the jobs that depend on those who trade with the eu. that is why it isn't a deal that appeals to those who want

a relationship that is close, many wa nt a relationship that is close, many want a relationship that is further apart, what i believe is important is that we respect the views of those who voted leave and deliver brexit that we recognise that we do need to protect the trading relationship and ensure we protect the jobs that rely on bad trading relationship with the eu. lam relationship with the eu. i am grateful. if parliament does not support her deal, what will she see is the most likely outcome? no deal or no brexit? cani deal or no brexit? can i say to my honourable friend, i am going to come onto the reference of the problems of parliament doesn't support this deal a little later in my speech, if ye will wait for that. thank you forgiving way. i agree with her that we need to start coming together as a country once this process is over. but doesn't

she also agreed that if she is convinced her deal and political agreement are what the british people voted for, then she should have confidence to go back and ask them to verify if it is something they support. cani they support. can i say to the honourable lady, as i have said in this chamber before, i think it is very important that all of us in this house recognise what there's parliament did. this parliament voted to give the choice of membership could be you to the british people. they voted to leave. it is incumbent on us to deliver that brexit and i believe it is a matter for trust in politicians and in this house that we do indeed deliver on that brexit. i will give way. cani way. can i asked my right honourable friend, is the details that are in

the deal she has agreement will ensure that the inward investment we have received in this country which is that many hundreds of thousands ofjobs, particularly in the automotive industry, will have the same access to markets that they have? can i say, that is what and append the proposal we put forward in the summer. it is what underpins the trade relationship that is identified in the declaration, ensuring people can invest in this country with confidence. the reference was made of people voting for a brighter future. we can deliver the brighter future with a deal that delivers a good relationship with europe but also enables us to have those other trade deals around the rest of the world as well. i will give way to my right honourable friend. she has courageously and consistently said they will be no second referendum,

which he agreed a second referendum would reopen all the wounds within families and above all it up at the union itself in jeopardy. cani union itself in jeopardy. can i say to my right honourable friend, i agree with him. a second referendum would exacerbate division in our country referendum would exacerbate division in ourcountryl referendum would exacerbate division in our country i would not bring our country back together again. i will give way to the honourable lady and i will make some progress. the prime minister has repeatedly referenced the 52% who voted to leave but i'm still confused as to why she has not willing to take any cognizance of the fact the electoral law has been broken and therefore the result of the referendum cannot be trusted. otherwise... otherwise, we may as well abolish electoral law altogether. will the prime minister not at least respond to the findings of the electoral commission.