‘ will be will be no second referendum, 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. canl 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. thank you the commission still says

they believe it was a fair poll and i believe we should abide by the result of that poll. we can choose to settle the issue now. i've said i'll make progress and then i'll be generous in my acceptance of interventions. we can choose to settle the issue now by backing the deal in this motion, a deal delivering brexit and a new partnership with the european union, a deal that delivers for the whole united kingdom, that begins to bring oui’ united kingdom, that begins to bring our country back together again. i will give way. i'm very grateful. the deal that she has brought back has my full and unequivocal support. but could i just ask has my full and unequivocal support. but could ijust ask her to confirm this, that as we leave, our country will still be a rules —based

international outward —looking caring and compassionate country, that stands as a beacon for good in the world? i'm very happy to give my honourable friend that reassurance but more than that, we will be a country promoting those values, promoting the rules —based international order around the world. that's what we've always done as the uk and will continue to do. i will take two more interventions. i'm grateful to the prime minister. on the 30th of march under the agreement the uk will lose its place on the eu data protection law, even though ministers have said they want to hold onto that place, it is a place where the uk has wielded considerable influence. isn't the reality of the agreement that we'll have to continue obeying these rules but we'll have lost the ability to influence what those rules are? the

terms of voting rights in various elements once we've left the european union is going to change. what has been clear from the agreements that we've negotiated is the capacity of the united kingdom to continue ? to give technical support where that is appropriate, ina support where that is appropriate, in a whole range of matters. on a numberof the in a whole range of matters. on a number of the issues which are dealt with by the european union, the rules they operate, they aren't just european union rules, by our international standards on which the united kingdom will continue during the impairment period and beyond to have its role. it is unfortunate for the government to be in contempt of parliament. would she agree it is worse for parliament to be in co nte m pt of worse for parliament to be in contempt of the british people, which is what will happen if we don't deliver on brexit? can i say to my honourable friend that i

absolutely agree that it is the duty, i believe, of this parliament, it is the duty of us as politicians to deliver on the result of the vote that the british people gave in 2016 oi'i that the british people gave in 2016 on the referendum. we gave them the choice, they voted to leave the eu. it is up to us to deliver the leaving of the european union, in the interests of our country. i will make some progress. the decision we have before us has two elements. their withdrawal agreement sets out the terms of our departure from the european union, and the political declaration sets the terms of our future relationship ? iwilljust make some progress. sets the terms of our future relationship with the eu. the withdrawal agreement ensures we will leave the eu on the 29th of march ina we will leave the eu on the 29th of march in a smooth and orderly way, it protects the rights of eu citizens in the uk and uk citizens living in the eu, so they can carry

on living their lives as before. it delivers a time limited implementation period to give business time to prepare for the new arrangements and during the impairment and period, trade will continue on current terms, so businesses only have to face one set of changes. and it ensures a fair settlement of our financial obligations, less than half of what some originally expected and demanded. i thank the prime minister for giving way and apologise for intervening. two years ago i said to the prime minister that i could never imagine her requesting me to vote to take away the rights of my italian parents, who are resident in scotland. can she confirm that her deal guarantees the rights of eu nationals in the united kingdom, 3.6 million of them, as well as the 1 million of them, as well as the 1 million united kingdom citizens in

the eu 27, in a way that no deal would not? i say to my honourable friend that this withdrawal agreement indeed guarantees those citizens 's rights. that guarantee of those rights is delivered through this withdrawal agreement. i will ta ke this withdrawal agreement. i will take my honourable friend and then i will make more progress.|j take my honourable friend and then i will make more progress. i am very grateful for giving way. no one can doubt the prime minister's agreement to the deal and passion with which c is selling it. she has twice referred to the status of northern ireland and that this is a good deal for northern ireland. i come from northern ireland and understand it pretty well. can she explain why the passion that this is a good deal for northern ireland isn't shared by those who understand northern ireland the best? my friend raises a point. i recognise that there are

representatives who sit for northern ireland in this westminster parliament who are concerned by aspects of the deal that has been agreed. there are elements of that where it is within ? the responsibility of this parliament and this government to be able to provide some reassurance about those elements that have raised concern and it is a matter that i will continue discussing with the representatives from northern ireland. i'm very grateful to the prime ministerfor ireland. i'm very grateful to the prime minister for letting me intervene. may i say that while the dup have ten mps in this house, the dup have ten mps in this house, the dup campaignfor dup have ten mps in this house, the dup campaign for leave. the majority of people in northern ireland, like me, campaignfor of people in northern ireland, like me, campaign for remain, so the dup do not speak for the majority of people 7 do not speak for the majority of people ? cheering ican people ? cheering

i can reassure the prime minister that her withdrawal agreement has considerable support in northern ireland, particularly amongst farmers, businesses and fishermen. i'm soy that people feel it is funny. it isn't, it is serious for the people of northern ireland. the issue that needs reassurance from the prime minister is the constitutional guarantee of the good friday agreement that the labour party should be proud of, which has guaranteed —— which is guaranteed in the withdrawal agreement and the political declaration. why the labour party goes against it beats me but will the prime minister give a constitutional agreement that nothing will threaten the belfast agreement customer i'm ——7 nothing will threaten the belfast agreement customer i'm --? i'm happy

to give that reassurance. this is an issue we have kept, it was referenced in the decemberjoint report, it is in the withdrawal agreement and political declaration. nothing in the deal we are determining with the european union will affect that position. we will continue to uphold the belfast agreement. i give way to the leader of the dup. of course the referendum that was held was a referendum of the whole united kingdom, and as a unionist i respect the referendum result across the united kingdom. manchester, london, scotland, places voted differently. whatever way they voted, the result is that the united kingdom voted and we should respect that. can i ask the prime minister, obviously in terms of northern ireland i'm happy to put it to attest a ny ireland i'm happy to put it to attest any time, we will happily go to the electorate and our views to the people if needs be and i'm

certain that we'd be returned in greater numbers than we are today. i'm happy to take on the challenge that has been put down. can i ask the prime minister, in terms of guaranteeing northern ireland ‘s position, in paragraph 50 of the joint report we spent four days negotiated, there were guarantees given to northern ireland. never mind the words said in the house today, it is in the text. why has that been deleted 7 today, it is in the text. why has that been deleted? why has he not kept that in the withdrawal agreement? why hasn't it been translated? agreement? why hasn't it been translated ? that's what agreement? why hasn't it been translated? that's what we have a problem with. words are good, it is what is in the agreement that matters. the gentleman is right that there was that reference to the consent of the northern ireland institutions in relation to any potential new regulatory differences between great britain and northern ireland. that is a matter that we

will be looking at and can look at in this house. as to the parliamentary arrangements between the institutions within the united kingdom, for the future. the institutions within the united kingdom, forthe future. it the institutions within the united kingdom, for the future. it is exactly these issues, the question of potential new regulatory divergences that is the one that i believe it will be possible to give the reassurance not just believe it will be possible to give the reassurance notjust to representatives in the chamber, but to the people of northern ireland for their future. i to the people of northern ireland fortheirfuture. iam to the people of northern ireland for their future. i am going to make some more progress in this debate. i will continue to take interventions but i will make more progress now. the withdrawal agreement also ensures a the withdrawal agreement also ensuresa fair the withdrawal agreement also ensures a fair settlement of our financial obligations, as i said, but i want to turn to the most contentious element of the agreement, perhaps it was a neat segue, the last intervention, the northern ireland protocol. it's important to remember what is at the

heart of the protocol, our commitment to the people of northern ireland, saying that whatever happens as we leave the eu, as i have said, we will honour the belfast agreement. the hard—won peace that has inspired the world and the detailed arrangements that have delivered and sustained it, will not be lost. that the people of northern ireland and ireland will be able to carry on living their lives as before. and to deliver that, we need a solution in the future partnership that ensures there is no ha rd partnership that ensures there is no hard border between northern ireland and ireland. both the uk and the eu are and ireland. both the uk and the eu a re fully and ireland. both the uk and the eu are fully committed to having our future relationship in place by the 1st ofjanuary, future relationship in place by the 1st of january, 2021. future relationship in place by the 1st ofjanuary, 2021. there is still the possibility that it is not ready before the end of the implementation period. the only way to guarantee no ha rd period. the only way to guarantee no hard border on the island of ireland and the implementation period is to have a backstop as the last resort insurance policy. let's be clear,

this is true notjust insurance policy. let's be clear, this is true not just for the insurance policy. let's be clear, this is true notjust for the deal we have negotiated, whether you want a model like canada or whether you wa nt a model like canada or whether you want to see the uk as a member of european economic area, any future relationship will have to be negotiated and will need an insurance policy if that negotiation cannot be completed in time. put simply, there is no possible withdrawal agreement without a legally operative backstop. no backstop means no deal. the prime minister is well aware that many of us wished her well in negotiations but does she understand and recognise that many of us also have concerns about the backstop, equating to enter a contract of employment giving the sole right of termination to the other party?“ my honourable friend will recognise me,i my honourable friend will recognise me, i recognise the concerns. i want

to reference those a little later, if my honourable friend willjust ? if my honourable friend willjust ? ifi if my honourable friend willjust ? if i can exhort the prime minister to face the house because her honourable friend can hear her but the others cannot. i understand some colleagues are worried, as i have said, that we could be stuck in the backstop indefinitely. in the ghostly asians we secured seven —— in the negotiations we secured seven reassurances. we will avoid a backstop coming into force in the first place. this isn'tjust a political agreement. as the attorney general set out, this is a recognised approach in international law and we have a right to seek international arbitration. the backstop can be replaced by alternative arrangements. the

political declaration makes clear that we will seek to draw upon all available facilitation is and technologies that could be used to avoid a hard border, and preparatory work will be done before we leave so we can make rapid progress after our withdrawal. if neither the future relationship nor the alternative arrangements were ready by the end of 2020, we would not have to go into the backstop at this point. instead we've negotiated a clear choice between the backstop or a short extension to the implementation period. if we do not go into the backstop, the ? if we go into the backstop, the legal text is explicit that it will be temporary and that the article 50 legal base cannot provide for a permanent relationship. if the backstop is no longer necessary to avoid a hard border we have the right to trigger a review through the joint committee. as a result of the changes we've negotiated there is an explicit termination clause allowing the backstop to be turned off. the legal text is now clear that once

the backstop has been superseded, it will cease to apply. so if a future parliament decided to move from an initially deep trade relationship to a looser one, the backstop could not return. i will give way. a looser one, the backstop could not return. iwill give way. i'm grateful to the prime minister for giving way. she is being very generous in giving way to a lot of people. what i would say is that as far as the backstop is concerned, we are told that the eu do not wish to exercise it. ireland does not wish to exercise it and certainly the uk does not want to exercise it. is it therefore not a case that this is not a matter of renegotiating the withdrawal agreement but actually a matter of the european union showing goodwill, and good faith towards the united kingdom, by allowing us one additional line in the withdrawal agreement, words to the effect that

in the event of the backstop being triggered, the united kingdom can, say at three months notice, leave the customs union. to allow that one line would show enormous good faith and goodwill on the part of the eu, and goodwill on the part of the eu, and nothing else. can i say to my right honourable friend, i recognise a degree of concern there is about the issue. i'm going on to speak about it in my speech further. the withdrawal agreement has been negotiated. it is clear from the european union that this is the deal. ijust ask european union that this is the deal. i just ask those european union that this is the deal. ijust ask those colleagues who wish to reopen the withdrawal agreement to recognise that if the withdrawal agreement were to be reopened, it would not simply be a question of what the uk then wanted to change, it would also be a question of enabling others to change elements of that withdrawal agreement. and given the rigorous

fight that we had in negotiations to ensure that there were certain elements that were in the interests of the united kingdom, notably around fisheries and other issues, i caution members that not only does the eu make clear that the withdrawal agreement cannot be opened, and we have agreed the deal, and the deal is there, but it is not the one—way street that perhaps honourable members would wish it to be. i will reference the wider issue. if i could finish this point, maybe it will respond to some of the comments. rather than focusing on the legal mechanisms, we must avoid the legal mechanisms, we must avoid the backstop and ensure it is only used temporarily, but the real question is whether it is in the eu's interests for the backstop to be used and for it to endure. their original proposal for the backstop would have split the uk into two customs territories and given only

northern ireland tariff free access to their market. it barely changed their orthodoxy and was not accessible but the backstop we've negotiated no longer splits the uk into two customs territories. it gives the whole uk tariff free access to their market, without free movement of people, without any financial contribution, without having to follow most of the level playing field rules, and without allowing them any access to our waters. so the backstop is not a trick to trap us in the eu. it gives us some important benefits of access to the eu market without any of the obligations. that is something the eu will want to —— not let happen, let alone persist. but i recognise, as has been clear from the contributions made, that there are members of the house who remain concerned. i've listened to those concerns. i want to consider how to go further and will continue meeting

colleagues to find an acceptable solution. i'm grateful to the prime minister for giving solution. i'm grateful to the prime ministerfor giving way. solution. i'm grateful to the prime minister for giving way. as she confronts the inevitable contradictions at the heart of the process is it worth remembering that most members including those on the benches opposite voted to trigger article 50 and for the referendum in the first place? amongst the country, her commitment to trying to pursue this is hugely admired. given that the issue divides all parties in the house and even on this site it even divides the factions, would it even divides the factions, would it be sensible, as parliament starts to ta ke it be sensible, as parliament starts to take control, to consider a free vote ? to take control, to consider a free vote? can i say to my honourable friend, first of all, i think it is important that all honourable members of the house remember not only that this house overwhelmingly gave the decision on whether or not to leave the european union to the

people in the referendum, that was an overwhelming vote of the house, that this house voted by a significant majority voting to trigger article 50, to continue the process of leaving the eu. and, as i said in my remarks, the fact that at the general election last year, about 80% of the vote went to parties who had in their manifesto a solid commitment to deliver on the brexit vote. i think we should all remember that when it comes to voting in the motion next week. i will give way to my friend who has been trying valiantly for some time and theni been trying valiantly for some time and then i will make progress. i'm very grateful. yesterday we tried to asked that attorney general for his legal advice on how much of the £39 billion we were going to hand over we we re billion we were going to hand over we were legally contractually obliged to do. he refused to give us

a specific figure. will the prime minister now give that a specific figure? when we going to be handing over £39 billion to the european union when we are facing shortages in ourown union when we are facing shortages in our own constituencies ? there are different elements to the 39 billion, in terms of the liabilities that they refer to. of course roughly 20 billion of that sum of money is in relation to the payments that will be made during the implementation period, which is about ensuring we have a smooth and orderly exit which is good for businesses. there are other liabilities within that where it is determined that we have legal obligations. that part of the money, it is 34-39 obligations. that part of the money, it is 34—39 billion, everyone quotes the higher figure, it it is 34—39 billion, everyone quotes the higherfigure, it is it is 34—39 billion, everyone quotes the higher figure, it is within that range that the final figure will come. i say to members that i recognise we have five days of debate but i think honourable

members will want to contribute in today's debate as well so i will make progress. the second part of the deal is the political declaration. it is a detailed set of instructions to negotiators that will be used to deliver a legal agreement on an ambitious future relationship after we have left. i know that some members worry the political declaration is not already legally binding. it cannot be a legally binding. it cannot be a legal agreement at this stage because the eu cannot agree a future relationship with us until we are a nonmember state. through the negotiations, we have ensured we have the framework for an ambitious new economic and security partnership that is in our national interest. at the outset the eu said we would have a binary choice, norway or canada. the political declaration concedes there is a spectrum and we will have an unprecedented economic relationship that my other major economy has. the eu also said we couldn't share security capabilities as a nonmember

state out sight of free movement and the sign in area but we have the broadest security partnership in the eu's history. —— the second if the deal is past the target ahead of us will be to turn this ambitious political declaration into our new legal agreement with the eu. i will give way. i thank the prime minister but i must intervene because she claims that this political declaration is detailed and specific but if that was the case, why was the treasury select committee told today that it wasn't even possible today that it wasn't even possible to produce an analysis from an economic perspective of the document because it simply wasn't specific enough? the economic analysis produced by the government last week was very clear that because the political declaration has within it

? political declaration has within ita ? political declaration has within it a spectrum where the balance of obligations in relation to rights of access, on tax at the border in relation to market access has to be addressed, it is clear that is going to be ambitious and we will continue to be ambitious and we will continue to work for frictionless trade, which is what was put forward in the white paper in the summer. it was right and proper that in the government economic analysis we indicated a middle point on the spectrum giving an indication to people of the impact of trade barriers, if they are put up. does the prime minister understand that by over claiming what is in the political declaration, she is undermining trust? she's asking for our trust in her and in the eu to determine what will happen in the future, because so little is resolved. not only on the spectrum of the economics but also on the security issues, she is over claiming. she suggested to my

honourable friend that she had effectively secured agreement but she knows she has not because she tried to get it. paragraph 87 does not say 552, it only says the parties will consider arrangements and if we are lucky we will get something that approximates. that isn't the same as 552 and she knows it. will she be straight with the parliament and country about the political declaration? i've said this to members before and i will say it again, there is a difference between ensuring that we have the capabilities that we need insecurity in the future and saying we will be ina in the future and saying we will be in a particular way doing that in a particular way. what paragraph makes clear is the intent to have the exchange of information on wanted or missing persons, criminal records, with a view to deliver capabilities

thatis with a view to deliver capabilities that is insofar as it is technically and legally possible and considered necessary and in both parties interests, approximate those enabled by relevant union mechanisms. this isa by relevant union mechanisms. this is a fundamental issue that has underpinned the approach to the negotiations. we could have approached them by saying we are going to take the models that already exist and we are in all cases going to say that we have to be in those models in the same way that we are today. what we have said is that we look to ensure that we have the capabilities that we have where we need them, and that is what we are delivering. and that is exactly what we have got in this political declaration. i will give way on that point and then i will make further progress. the prime

minister knows, she tried to get the exact same thing, she tried to get sis2 and she failed. she got other ones but i ask her to whether she got to sis2. the honourable lady isn't suggesting that the prime minister is not being honest. she is encouraging forthrightness?|j certainly am and i would not challenge the prime minister's integrity because i know she has worked hard but i'm asking for her to give accurate information to the house. did she tried to get sis ii rather than pretending she was trying to get a parallel capability? we are clear that the capabilities that are available to us as a member of sis ii what those capabilities

are, that we still have the same relationship that we have at the current time. we want to make sure that it current time. we want to make sure thatitis current time. we want to make sure that it is the capabilities underpinning sis ii that we indeed ? the lady may want to cast her mind back to when i was home secretary, when i stood at the dispatch box, moving the motion that ensured we could rejoin 35 matches, including sis ii, and she was working with the memberfor sis ii, and she was working with the member for north somerset to stop the government from rejoining those measures. if the deal is past, the task ahead of us will be to turn this ambitious political declaration into our agreement with the eu. i'm

going to make more progress. in doing so, ? ithink going to make more progress. in doing so, ? i think the next section may be of interest. i want to build the broadest possible consensus within the house and across the country. for the next stage of negotiations we will ensure a greater and more formal role for parliament. this will begin immediately as we develop our negotiating mandate, building on the declaration ahead of the 29th of march, 2019. the government will consult more widely and engage more intensively with parliament as we finalise the mandate for the next phase of negotiations. ministers will appear before select committees between now and march in each area of the political declaration, from fisheries committee space, to foreign policy. so members across the house will be able to contribute their expertise to the detailed positions we take forward with the eu. and the house will be consulted on the final version of that full