welcome to a bbc news special from westminster. i'm simon mccoy. the prime minister is preparing to make a statement to the house of commons in an hour and a half's time — after deciding not to go ahead with a vote on her brexit deal in the face of almost certain defeat — but european colleagues say there is no chance of renegotiating of the deal it took over a year and a half to negotiate, it has the support of 28 governments, and it is not possible to re—open any aspect of that agreement without reopening all aspects of it. the democratic unionist party leader nigel dodds says the government's position is a shambles. quite frankly, it is a bit of a shambles, and they need to realise, that when they cross guidelines, they are in trouble. the labour party leader jeremy corbyn says calling off the vote is a desperate step at the 11th hour. the scottish first minister says she will support any vote of no confidence in the prime minister. and this morning the european court ofjustice said britain could cancel brexit

altogether — without consulting the other nations of the eu. good afternoon. this is a bbc news with a special programme from westminster where the bbc understands theresa may has pulled the crucial commons vote tomorrow on her brexit deal after consulting with her cabinet this morning. it comes amid speculation she was about to lose it heavily. the labour leaderjeremy corbyn described the decision to postpone the vote as a desperate step at the 11th hour. let's take a closer look at today's developments. the prime minister is to give a statement to mps at half past three this afternoon — where she will formally announce the delay to the vote on her brexit deal. this will be followed by a statement from the commons leader, andrea leadsom. already today, judges at the european court ofjustice,

ruled that the uk can suspend the brexit process at any time — without the eu's permission — they ruled this could be done without altering the terms of britain's membership. the brexit secretary, stephen barclay will give the government's reaction later. and on thursday, eu leaders will meet in brussels for a summit, where brexit isn't formally on the agenda, but events at westminster, will more than likely change that. this report is from our political correspondent, chris mason. first thing this morning, peterhead fish market, and the big sell was still on. when a cabinet minister is wearing a baseball cap, a white coat and a pair of wellies, he's holding a fish and there are cameras in tow, you can be sure they are hawking something. the scottish secretary's produce was the government's eu withdrawal agreement and he sounded pretty definitive. do you think that there should be a delay on the meaningful vote? the prime minister has been clear the vote's

going ahead and i believe it should go ahead. people have to make up their minds, but when they do that they don't just look at the deal itself, they have to look at alternatives. but look at this... will it go ahead? i certainly hope so. the prime minister's confirmed that so i look forward to supporting her as it goes ahead tomorrow. a fellow cabinet minister sounding rather less certain. yes, it's been one of those mornings where things have been changing this morning minute by minute. downing street let it be known that nothing was off the table, that the prime minister was speaking to fellow eu leaders on the phone, and perhaps the withdrawal agreement could be reopened, renegotiated, but the details of the backstop, that insurance policy to keep the border open on the island of ireland, could be revisited. then the prime minister's official spokesperson told us the vote was still on for tomorrow, but source after source was telling us it was off. now we know the prime minister will give a statement in the commons this afternoon.

the news that the prime minister is going to be backing out of putting this vote to parliament tomorrow is, i think, an admission that she has got no chance of having her brexit proposal get through. but is it realistic that the eu will give ground? the deal that is there, which is the deal between the uk and eu, is not going to change. particularly the legal language of the withdrawal treaty. and the foreign secretary speaking a few hours ago seemed to agree with him. this is their best and final offer. i think the prime minister's has made it clear that she's not totally comfortable with some elements of the backstop. but, in the end, this is the deal on the table, it gives us the vast majority of things that people voted for, and there are real risks if we don't grab this opportunity

while we have it. it's been a busy day, and it's only lunchtime. chris mason, bbc news, at westminster. with me is our chief political correspondent, vicki young. from the outside, this looks like a bit of a mess? yes, not least because he had cabinet ministers earlier saying that the vote was going ahead. i think the reason that it's not going ahead is because the defeat the government was facing was so defeat the government was facing was so great, that ijust think afterwards, it would have been com pletely afterwards, it would have been completely unpredictable. losing a vote is one thing, but if the numbers were so great that theresa may could not be sure of her survival, i think that would be the reason. . . survival, i think that would be the reason... she'd will presumably come to the commons and say that she has listen to concerns on both sides on the so—called backstop and will go back to brussels to get some concession from them, but we are already hearing from brussels, pre—empting that, that there is no change that cats can be made from the withdrawal agreement. this backstop is at the heart of every

problem that theresa may has. why is it such an issue? it is because the conservatives that are unhappy about it, and the dup, theyjust feel that they will be trapped in this customs arrangement, a close religion ship with the eu ever, even though the reassu ra nces with the eu ever, even though the reassurances that they try to give is that this is not good for the eu either, a not good as it shall be the side, so we will move to a permanent feature relationship much quicker, so we would need to be any backstop. the dup don't like it, because they say it makes northern ireland separate, and treat them differently to the rest of the united kingdom, so they don't like it. labour would support it, because they want a different arrangement completely. no side is happy with it, but the eu is consisting that legally it has to be there to prevent border checks between northern ireland and ireland, because that will now be the

external border of the single market. until she stands up at half past three here, this can only be described as a fight for survival, can't it? yes, the defeat that she was facing was so great is that she could not be sure that she can stay in herjob. could not be sure that she can stay in her job. many could not be sure that she can stay in herjob. many mps do not think she can, especially in the long—term. a couple that i spoke to said, for what reason? what was she do instead? said, for what reason? what was she do instead ? others said, for what reason? what was she do instead? others have said that more letters will go in from unhappy conservative mps, trying to trigger... this is the magic number, 48 votes, 50% of the party membership, who if they get that number of votes and letters, there is then that trigger for a leadership challenge. it triggers a vote of confidence in hub. it is not quite that next age. she could still win that, but she needs to win by 151 . win that, but she needs to win by 151. he has to win that confidence vote. it is a vote amongst all —— there are some who think that you

can win that, and then she is safe for a year. then, there is a separate issue of a confidence vote in the government, which labour could table. there is talk about that, and nicola sturgeon, snp leader, putting pressure on labour saying if you were a proper opposition, you would labour this. —— table it. why aren't you doing that? that is the pressure being put on labour trying to do that, but the dup said they would support the dramatist on that, if not much else, so dramatist on that, if not much else, so she could be saved. what ever she said in the house of commons and the next hour and a half, it is going to depend on something from brussels, some sort of compromise, when they have made it very clear up until now that it's impossible... it is whether it is not part of the withdrawal agreement. there could be other things, attendance or other declarations attached to it, but the polymers, they legally binding? i can't see most mps going for it u nless can't see most mps going for it unless they are legally binding. it

might be enough to peel off some mps, saying that they need to get behind the prime minister now, because things are looking so great behind the government. it could be enough to get a few numbers, but it does not think to be enough to win over enough people to win. delaying the vote is one thing, but went with the vote is one thing, but went with the next vote be, if you like? there has to be one. that is the first thing. there has to be one to get through any kind of withdrawal agreement, so it'll have to happen eventually. i to someone agreement, so it'll have to happen eventually. ito someone in downing street last week who said it needs to be —— it does not necessarily need to be done before christmas. they could run to january, but in the meantime, you feel there is a bit of a vacuum, a lack of leadership, it feels that the premise is not able to get through her main policy, that she has been working on the over two years, and the defeat that she was staring at was so the defeat that she was staring at was so great that she had to delay the vote. now that is quite a situation to be in for a prime

minister. the matter throughout has been nothing is agreed until everything is agreed. is this a remarkable case of brickman ship, or what it looks like, the verge of chaos? there is precedent for the eu at the last minute, when they are pushed to the point where no one can move any more, that they might give some kind of concession, but as others have pointed out, that is normally to a member state that is in the eu, not one that is trying to leave. it seems unlikely at this point that they would be able to do anything very much to keep the uk on site. oh look, you push them to the brink, and then they caven, and then there is the whole issue that they don't feel that they can move on this. we have a right car —— irish... he of course is in a country that is being in the eu. we

askedif country that is being in the eu. we asked if fighting the prime minister at 3:30pm. the leader of the commons, andrea leadsom will be going through the logistics of what will happen here if the vote does not happen tomorrow. she will provide a commons business statement. that is before the brexit secretary, stephen buckley makes a statement on the article 50. this is following the decision this morning by the european that the uk simply has too write a letter, if it wants to remain in the eu, no need for the other european countries to agree that the uk will rip remain in the eu under the existing terms. or that -- all eu under the existing terms. or that —— all that it would effectively would take is a letter. in the last few minutes, a tweet:

no room for confusion with that one. with me is labour's shadow justice secretary, richard burgon. where are we right now? each minute that passes, a new situation and false. we are in a situation where michael gove said this morning that the boat would definitely go ahead. it is looking like it 3:30pm, it will be announced that the vote has been cancelled. after losing three votes last week, and being found in co nte m pt of votes last week, and being found in contempt of parliament last week, we now have a government running scared of democracy, by apparently pulling this defining boat. we have clearly got a government that it's in office, but not in power. it is time for them to move aside, they have

got no negotiating credibility left. what are you going to do about it? to actually carry on pressing for the way out of this. obviously, we think that theresa may and this government need to step aside and end this crisis. labour's deal actually of a permanence customs union, a strong single market and no reduction in workers' rights or environmental and consumer rights, could convince the majority of the house of commons and bring the country together. this has got to stop. it is a political crisis. that phrase, bring the country together? this country have never been more divided. what on earth canjeremy corbyn offered that will bring eve ryo ne corbyn offered that will bring everyone together? we accept and respect the outcome of the referendum, but what we don't respect is theresa may buzz half baked botched deal which is the worst of all worlds, and she is trying to hold people who voted remain to ransom, and people who voted leave to ransom. she is

telling people who voted remain that the choice is her dreadful deal or... but how do you please everyone then? because our approach is a common—sense approach that protects jobs, protects our sovereignty, doesn't end up with us being in this backstop, which is very much likely to end up as a. —— at a full stop. how do you use that procedure to make what you want to happen happen? well, let's say, as i say, with every minute things change. we heard earlier on in your programme about the possibility of a labour leadership challenge to theresa may. we don't know if she will be the prime minister. you are waiting for that? we're not waiting about anything. we will be pushing for the common—sense deal, but also carry on calling... but how? how are you going to do it? call for a vote of no—confidence in the government? or

injuries mac personally? what are you going to do in the 3a hours? injuries mac personally? what are you going to do in the 34 hours? -- all for theresa may personally? if she doesn't bring the boat, then that admits that she can't command the confidence of the house. in any normal circumstances, she would step aside, as the precise parliamentary tactics or procedures, i would not be forgiven by the chief whip if i can tell everyone on live television what we are going to do. the situation is changing, we are in unprecedented political crisis, our government is actually an office and not in power. it is time to step aside. if they are in the week position that you are describing, there are plenty of people who would say that this is the moment to strike? well, let's see what parliamentary procedures we can use, but the onus now is on the government to do the right thing. people have got to understand that

negotiating credibility is important to getting that deal in the interest of the country. this is a prime minister, a lame by minister, a lame government. what you think she should be saying at 3:30pm she should be saying at 3:30pm she should say that bite her time?m should be saying at 3:30pm she should say that bite her time? it is not about biding time, she should call a general election, she should step aside and allow labour to negotiate a brexit that meet our cats, it commands the support of the house of commons, that can bring the country together? is little understanding that there is a vote required if she is to delay this? bat is it your understanding. there area number of bat is it your understanding. there are a number of ways... bat is it your understanding. there are a number of ways. .. does that very decision to delay this vote required own vote. i am not certain of that. i will be taking advice on that. we don't know the show, although we are pretty certain that she is pulling the boat, but let's

see what she says at 330, when she comes at the house of commons, as leader of a shambles government. finally, do you think that if you we re finally, do you think that if you were in government, the labour party, would they be able to get concessions out of the eu, that theresa may hasn't. the former european commissioner has said that the eu would further negotiate. the former european commissioner has said that. the eu has negotiated before and fought against the lisbon treaty in ireland. the problem is that the government has no credibility as a negotiator, because it has spent the last two matches negotiating with their own cabinet and backbenchers. we would not have had that time. thank you very much for your time. the irish prime minister spoke to mrs may over the weekend and today he said the withdrawal agreement could not be re—negotiated. the withdrawal agreement including

the backstop is the only agreement on the table. it took over a year and a half to negotiate, it has the approval of 28 governments, and it is up in possible to open element of it without reopening the whole thing. i don't think we should ever get hubby got to this point. the united kingdom decided to leave the european union, and the uk government decided to take lots of options off the table, whether we are staying in the single market and the customs union, or northern ireland's specific backstop. so the reason that we have this situation is because of the red lines which the united kingdom itself has delany entered. -- has specified. let's speak to our brussels reporter, adam fleming who is at the european court ofjustice in luxembourg. following the decision this morning, which many will see as a gift as to

those wanting to remain in the uk, but many will watch the television to see what is a mac has to say, because none of us know? yes, this was an enormous ruling here at the european court of justice was an enormous ruling here at the european court ofjustice this morning, but what's the eu treaties say about a country changing its mind about leaving. essentially reversing the brexit process, and it was massive news for about 47 minutes, and then everybody moved on to events where you are. i think eve ryo ne to events where you are. i think everyone knew this was a possibility, they would have seen the mps and the backbenchers lining up the mps and the backbenchers lining up to say that they could not vote for the deal, and they had all the speculation that we have been hearing too, so they must have known that this is a possibility, but the question now is what can theresa may get if she comes back to brussels to try and renegotiate the deal? well, the spokesperson for the european commission, who was at the regular midday briefing forjournalists in brussels was pretty clear. we have an agreement on the table

that was endorsed by the european council on the 25th of november. as president jean—claude juncker has said, this deal is the best and only deal possible. we will not renegotiate. our position has not changed. as far as we are concerned, the united kingdom is leaving the european union on the 29th of march 2019. so what happens now, because theresa may is going to stand up in the house of commons, and she is good to say, i will go back to brussels, presumably? brad mooar yes, your guess is as good as mine. iam yes, your guess is as good as mine. i am told we will get more clarity about what will actually happen. in terms of what she can negotiate it, it is pretty clear that the withdrawal agreement, the 585 page legal treaty settling the divorce, including the irish backstop. it is closed. what people are talking

about is the possibility of clarifications about that text, and think back to what happened with gibraltar if you be ago, the text was closed, but that never 24—hour was closed, but that never 24—hour was with lots of activity, lots of dramatic headlines, and we saw editions to minutes of eu leaders clarifying what the withdrawal agreement actually meant, accompanied by letters to brussels and london, and a lots of phone calls. we could expect a lot of activity over the next couple of days, even if the actual substance of the words themselves don't change. and remember, there is this political declaration, the other document that is the other half of the brexit package, that non—binding aspirational document that sets out the future of the eu relationship. there is an issue, the only one to rewrite that if it becomes clear a new version would get through parliament, at another attempted boat. they are not going to put

effort into rewriting that on the eu side if it is not good to be led up to the top of the hill and marched back down the hand, because it will not get through parliament. the other thing about that political is that duration is it pretty much spells out a canada plus plus plus with free—trade deal with add—ons on security and all things. the only direction in the political declaration is more towards norway, and a closer relationship with the eu, which means there might be room for manoeuvre to change that document than people think. thank you very much. with me now is the former conservative minister dr phillip lee, a supporter of the people's vote campaign which is calling for another referendum. where are we? sadly, where i thought we would be when i resigned which is ata we would be when i resigned which is at a parliamentary impasse. pulling the vote is inevitable. there is nothing to be get from brussels. i

suspect we will be here next week having the boat. ijust want to get on with it. we need to decide, parliament needs to decide whether we vote for a no—deal brexit, or for a people's vote, and i'm for a people's vote. how much authority that theresa may have after today? it would not have been what i would have done. i was arguing that they should pivot to a people's vote. it am not seeking to remove herfrom office. and yet, all she is doing at the moment the struggling to survive? i think what she is trying to do is the best for her country as she sees it where she is. take my side of it would be tickled deal to the public, if the public vote for it, then fine, but as it currently stands there is a danger of its

careering towards no brexit, and i think that is a bad thing for the country. there has already been a vote, but another vote mightjust contradict things even more? there is no easy path out of this. that is the shore. however, if we did have another boat, it is a different question. this time now, there would be two legally practical options. last time round, it was the status quo vote versus not the status quo. it was not defined, and what we are seeing today, is that process playing out, that we cannot arrive ata playing out, that we cannot arrive at a definition that all of the brexiteers would agree upon, so we have got to take what we have got back to the public. what you are seeing outside parliament, is people saying, we voted for brexit and you are letting us down. i think we are seeing both, ifi are letting us down. i think we are seeing both, if i look over my shoulder. what i don't understand is the idea that having another boat is

undemocratic. by definition, it is democratic. —— another vote. undemocratic. by definition, it is democratic. -- another vote. but it's a weird democracy when you are going to keep asking the people until you get the answer you want. what you are saying is brexit is not possible. burner the brexit that was promised in 2016 is not possible, and therefore we need to ask the public whether they want a brexit on the terms that actually exist? what happens to theresa may now.|j suppose the suggestion is she is going to get back to brussels but we will have to wait to see what she is going to say. i think she will have to decide whether she was a vote from the people, or whether she was subscribe to a no deal. i think i know the answer to that question. what could she get from brussels which would make you think that her

deal was acceptable? which would make you think that her deal was acceptable ?|j which would make you think that her deal was acceptable? i spent the week end in germany at the cdu conference, watching angela merkel be appointed. i was told categorically, there is no more movement from brussels. take it or leave it. that is negotiation, isn't it? we are still negotiating. but if you see what the irish prime minister has said this afternoon,” don't think that's the case. what about the conservative party, the 48 letters that would be required for a vote ta ke letters that would be required for a vote take place. do you think there are members and colleagues of yours that understanding it is time to write a letter. i fear might be the case. i would write a letter. i fear might be the case. iwould hope write a letter. i fear might be the case. i would hope that they would realise that changing the lead at this stage is deeply irresponsible. it makes no difference to the arithmetic of this house. we need to

get behind the diamonds that as she navigates and choppy waters. that is my position. i see no way out of this other than involving the people again. nigel dodds is deputy leader of the dup and says that postponing the meaningful vote would be a shambles. what she says the day in the house will be absolutely critical. if this is another question of kicking the can down the world and hoping to get some tweaks and changes to some kind of political declaration, or some statement outside of brussels and so on, she knows now that it won't work. so let's have a bit of transparency, openness and honesty, from everyone. government has been telling us that there is only one deal, and it isn't the only deal, quite frankly. it is a bit of a shambles and they need to realise, that when they cross red lines, they are in trouble. that was nigel dodds. conservative mp

alan duncan says we now risk entering a chaotic period of disintegration. we will see what comes out of the delay, but we are in a sort of kafka —esque box where every permutation has got its own problems, and effusive please say, get rid of the prime minister, we risk going into a chaotic period of disintegration. so, we've got one of our questions answered by none other than the house of commons itself who are currently doing a question and answer session on twitter. so cal parrish asked: can the vote be pulled without a vote on pulling it? the house of commons replied... it could be delayed in one of three ways. a minister could defer a motion when it's called at the start of business today or tomorrow. 2) government could move a motion during the debate "that the debate be now adjourned" — this could be debated and voted on. and then 3) if these two options are unavailable, technically a minister could "talk out" the debate at 7pm on tuesday. let's look now

at what the rammifications could be for the prime minister and the government if they confirm the delay on the brexit vote. with me is doctor catherine haddon a senior fellow at the institute for government. i suppose the question that everybody is asking is what could happen now? in terms of delaying the vote, it looks like that'll happen. the debate could happen tomorrow, whichjust the debate could happen tomorrow, which just kicked it into the long grass. we will see point of order, i suspect. we will see quite a lot of debate and argument in the house of commons, allowing the government to do that, after that, it is a good question. we wait see what is a mac saysis question. we wait see what is a mac says is her next course of action. a lot of assumptions that she might go back to the eu later this week to try and get some more concessions, but if so, she is probably going to have to say when she will come back to the comments with that. the timetable is all grown up now as a

result of this decision. now, there is no time period, presumably? the 21 days would have been on new year's eve. we don't think the comment would have come back on that date. there is another date that was the 21st of january, but because she has already presented a deal, that isa has already presented a deal, that is a moot point. it will come down toa is a moot point. it will come down to a political decision as to when she decides to bring this back to the house. they will need to vote it at some point, but she could keep pushing it down the line. everybody is saying they are rushing off to write these 48 letters, if there is a challenge within her party, what is the time? the first thing would be a vote of confidence in herasa thing would be a vote of confidence in her as a leader which would mean she would have to get 50% of her mps to support her. is that not something labour could call? that is a different vote of confidence, of

government, which could possibly trigger the fixed term parliament act in the process to a general election but labour could put down a vote of confidence in the commons at any point. the party could put one down in her as a leader and possibly trigger a leadership contest.“ labour pushed that and said they wa nted labour pushed that and said they wanted a general election, where are we? we are waiting to see where the dup vote and her own party. she needs not only all of their party but also the dup to support her to avoid that a vote of confidence going against her. at the moment, the dup had said they would support her in that despite likely voting down her deal. where they stand now, we don't know. it might depend on how she handles this afternoon.“ is interesting the comments themselves putting out a twitter q&a because we are in uncharted waters. we are and everybody was expecting to be talking about the big game which was tomorrow. we try to answer all these questions in the commons library but they are like everyone

else and firing off different a nswe i’s else and firing off different a nswers to else and firing off different answers to questions this has thrown up. if the prime minister is trying to buy time, how much time has she bought? possibly until after christmas but it depends on how her party reacts today, whether they trigger those 48 letters, whether at the commons is able to find some kind of mechanism for forcing further debate. we have seen labour find an awful lot different, obscure mechanisms to defeat the government in different ways and i'm sure they will be looking for some way to make their voice heard. interesting that very few people seem to know what the procedure is! fortunately you do. she gets up this afternoon and says she is delaying the vote, could someone say, says she is delaying the vote, could someone say, i need to vote on that? there are different ways in which parliament would make its voice heard, most likely in points of order. and the speaker becomes important. he does, if there is vote of order, what they are most likely

to do is when all of these state m e nts to do is when all of these statements have been made by her and andrea leadsom and stephen barclay, we will probably see that the motion is delayed. at that point there will be more points of order put down i suspect and the speaker would rule on all of them. we know he is very keen for parliament to have its safe so we will see if there is some mechanism that parliament can fight back against the delay. well done, despite the heckling! thank you for coming in. the house of commons themselves are on twitter taking questions on the procedure. there it is. a lot of people, many experts here don't really know what will happen next in terms of the logistics and the procedure here at the house of commons. theresa may will be getting up injust under an hourfor will be getting up injust under an hour for what could be one of the most important speeches of her life

as many as eight she struggles to survive following the decision to drop the debate tomorrow. we can have a look inside the commons because mps are gathering right now for what promises to be one of the most historic sittings certainly in recent history. with me now is the leader of the liberal democrats, sir vince cable. were you surprised when she delayed it? yes. it is unfortunately a signal of desperate weakness. that is reinforced by the fact that at the weekend, her people were out assaying under no circumstances would they withdraw and had they not done that, people might have been mystified but now they can see it as extreme weakness. many people are mystified she was going ahead with it at all given everybody said you don't have a cat in hell's chance of getting it through. that was the case and what has happened to date rather reinforces the fact that the government hasjust rather reinforces the fact that the government has just given up, that will not —— make they will not get anything like a majority. she might

say she will go back to brussels and give it one more go. we have no indication whatsoever that brussels will do any more. they might add a few warm words to the declaration but we are arguing about fundamental differences and that is not going to cut it. is there anything she could say this afternoon which would make you think, we will back you and your idea brexit? no, her authority is draining away. what we are moving to, whether it happens this afternoon or tomorrow, the leader of the opposition has a duty, the authority of the government has collapsed and he has a duty to move a motion of no confidence. is that what the country wants?” a motion of no confidence. is that what the country wants? i fear it isn't but if the government cannot function and she cannot get her basic legislation through, that is what we are moving towards. i suspect that parliament would not vote for a general election and we would move on to the issue of alternative strategies of which the people's vote is gaining momentum and might well be approved at that

point. you are calling for a general election in effect. at the first stage there has to be a motion of no confidence. could that come this afternoon? today or tomorrow is the possibility which is very strong. are you hearing that somebody is preparing to do that? mr corbyn indicated yesterday that was on his agenda and it is his duty and i think it should have happened already. he has to move next in order to remove that logjam to looking at other possibilities. what is the message to the 52% of people who voted for brexit? the message is that the prime minister has found it all too difficult and she has created unnecessary obstacles in her red line and they will not get the kind of brexit that many wanted.“ it the backstop, is that the real issue? no, it is the issue is for her own backbenchers and the ulster unionists but for many other people it's the fact that we have years and yea rs of it's the fact that we have years and years of endless wrangling about what the future relationship could

be with the eu. it does not solve the problem. have we not got a house of commons full of mps, the majority of commons full of mps, the majority of whom are remainers who are just trying to get their way?” of whom are remainers who are just trying to get their way? i don't think that's true at all. the house of commons has fallen over backwards to a cce pt of commons has fallen over backwards to accept and work with the brexit mandate that the government said it has but we have now run out of road. she has an agreement that, on all sides for different reasons, is thought to be wholly unsatisfactory and we have to look at other solutions and the only way of restoring her authority and that of the government is to go to the country and say that this is ideal, the best i can do, do you want it or should we remain in the eu? people will say that this is a bit like the very european union way of doing things which is, until we get the a nswer we things which is, until we get the answer we want, we will keep coming back to it. it is a different problem and answer. we know in a way that we didn't two years ago what brexit involved. she has a deal, the best that could be negotiated, and

she now is to test it in the country. what about the no deal option? i think we all agree that that would be utterly irresponsible and very dangerous. it is not arising out of negotiation with the eu, it is something the government would impose on the country and that would impose on the country and that would be a wildly reckless thing to do. on the ballot paper, if there was another referendum, how many questions and what are day? there is no need for more than one question, the prime minister has negotiated the prime minister has negotiated the brexit deal in good faith, it is brexit or wheat remain in the eu. i think that covers the fundamental questions. and the ruling from the european court this morning that said all we need to do is write a letter, we don't have to ask permission from anybody else and we can stay in the eu and that's it as far as you're concerned? that makes it much easier because people have been objecting in the last few months, having another vote would be difficult, the obstacles would be we would have to get the agreement of 27 countries but we don't. it would

be relatively straightforward. ironically we have the european court ofjustice ironically we have the european court of justice handing ironically we have the european court ofjustice handing back control to the british government. do you accept that the country would still be split in the way that it is now if it went down your road?“ still be split in the way that it is now if it went down your road? it is u nfortu nately, we now if it went down your road? it is unfortunately, we are a very divided country but this is an option to draw a line under it and i have a lwa ys draw a line under it and i have always made it clear that i and the people who support we would accept the result. we are not talking about riots, we should do it peacefully and democratically. if it is 52-48 in favour of the eu this time round, thatis in favour of the eu this time round, that is acceptable? it has to be, we have to draw a line under this at some point. and in terms of the prime minister's authority, is there anything you think she could do in the speech, this very important speech, because a few hours ago she was not expecting to make it presumably. what would your advice be to her? i amjust

presumably. what would your advice be to her? i am just speechless, presumably. what would your advice be to her? i amjust speechless, i don't know how she has landed herself in this impossible position. she was sending out her own brexit minister yesterday saying she would not back down and press ahead with the vote. she has a lot of explaining to do as to why she has just given up within 24 hours. what if she says she hasn't spoken to angela merkel and other senior figures within the eu, there might be some wriggle room, would you give her time? she will take the time if she postpones it. it is not a question of us giving time, parliament has debated the issue, we have no reason to expect that angela merkel or anyone else will fundamentally change the nature of the negotiations and we just want to get on and come to a conclusion. sir vince cable, thank you forjoining us. vince cable, thank you forjoining us. we can go to edinburgh. joining me to discuss the ecj ruling is

professor sir david edward. explain the significance of the ruling this morning because we were expecting to say that because of what the judge advocate said last week. and indeed i believed it was pretty obvious from the very beginning. what they have said is that a member state that has given an article 50 notice to withdraw is entitled to withdraw that notice on two conditions. the first is that the notice to withdraw the notice is given in writing to the notice is given in writing to the european council, which is obvious. and secondly, that it is unconditional. in other words, that the intention is to remain a member state on the same conditions as before. that is what the ruling says. professor, there will be those that say that this is a political

decision. yes, and of course you have to remember that it is a political issue behind it. but courts are there to rule on what the law is. of course, the result has a political effect and of course the case was brought by politicians. but the task of the court is to say what the task of the court is to say what the law is and they have said so. the ecj itself, a red line for theresa may, was that a mistake?“ isa theresa may, was that a mistake?“ is a meaningless idea because the way in which the european court operates, as 275% its cases, is to give rulings on points of law that are raised by the courts of the member states —— as to 75%. the idea that it has some sort of jurisdiction to come into the uk and

boss about the courts is absurd.“ is not the impression we were getting when we were being told what brexit was about, was it? no. exit was presented on a totally false hypothesis. —— brexit. was presented on a totally false hypothesis. -- brexit. why? because ofa simple hypothesis. -- brexit. why? because of a simple understanding of what the ecj is? yes. we had never really spent much time understanding the institutions of the eu. some of us have been trying to teach that for a number of years. but the british public have never really had it explained to them properly how the eu works. and the eu works on the basis that it is an organisation based on the law. this is, like most other european countries which have a written constitution and a constitutional court which says what

the law is. and the eu is no different in that respect. that was the model on which the ecj was set up. what is it being confused with? the court of human rights? partly with the court of human rights which rules on whether a particular action ofa rules on whether a particular action of a member state is contrary to one of a member state is contrary to one of the articles of the convention on human rights. that is the task of the court of human rights which sits in strasbourg and is a totally different organisation from the ecj. the ecj, as i say, exists to say what eu law is, that is what the treaty says it is to do. that is what it does. but of course, the nature of the issues that go to the

european court is that, in many cases, they are political in the sense that they have political consequences, as indeed many of them have business consequences,. if you are making decisions on the rules of the single market, there are business consequences and that is not really a peculiarity of the ecj, the british supreme court makes decisions which have political consequences. when the supreme court of the uk ruled that the article 50 notice could only be served with parliamentary authority, that had political consequences, as we know from the fuss in the newspapers. professor sir david edward, thank you forjoining us. huge business implications of any decisions and we can go to when bland with the

latest. what is the pound up to? —— ben bland. it is not up to anything, it is down against the dollar and the euro. because of the uncertainty, investors don't like that, and we have seen plenty of it at westminster. as the prime minister's chances of getting the deal approved have dipped, so too has the value of the pound. we are seeing investors moving their funds away from stirling and into other assets. the effect this has on you, if you're planning a foreign trip, you will notice that your pound buys you less in terms of dollars and euros, to give you an example. the reason it is important for businesses is because the weaker pound makes imports more expensive and that gets passed on to the

prices we pay in the shops. when prices we pay in the shops. when prices go up, the measure is called inflation of course and then you can potentially see interest rates going up potentially see interest rates going up to try to bring inflation under control which makes things like mortgage payments more expensive. you can see that chain effect over time, that is the effect of a dip in the value of a pound. conversely, for businesses that export a lot, a wea k for businesses that export a lot, a weak pound means that people who are buying their goods from overseas can get more for their money. it makes those products more competitive, those products more competitive, those goods and services. it helps exporters and it also helps exporters and it also helps exporters because if they are earning money, making sales in dollars and euros for example, when they convert it back £2 they get more in terms of profit, it inflates the profits they have —— convert it back to pounds. the ftse 100 the profits they have —— convert it back to pounds. the ftse100 today isa back to pounds. the ftse100 today is a higher because something like three quarters of the revenues made

on the ftse100 are made in foreign currencies. the other angle is the ftse 250 which is made up more of companies that trade in the uk and thatis companies that trade in the uk and that is down, by more than i% a short while ago. that is the effect of the pound falling. some of the falls we have seen are quite sharp. it is down to its lowest level against the dollar since june it is down to its lowest level against the dollar sincejune 2017 and against the euro since september. that is in large part down to the uncertainty that we have been seeing. the other thing to notice when you look at the markets isa notice when you look at the markets is a move away from riskier stocks and shares and investors putting their money into safer assets, for example government bonds. some shares in particular worth noting are the shares in house—builders. we have heard the effect potentially of

a hard brexit, a no—deal brexit on house prices and if there are questions over that, you will seek shares in house—builders potentially falling and that is what we have seen on falling and that is what we have seen on the ftse100 so far in trading at the start of the week. we talked about this earlier with eight senior market analyst at a foreign exchange platform. that element of uncertainty is not good for an investing standpoint, it seems that every day there is a new avenue that the situation could go down and many of them appear to be negative for the economy and therefore negative for the currency. it is often the case that the currency is the first to feel this pain before it reverberates elsewhere. as we saw in the aftermath of the referendum itself when the pound fell 10%, it eventually had an impact on the cost of living and weekly shopping, fuel prices, because oil is priced in dollars for example and the inflation impact is the greatest

impact you will see. but when people go on holiday, when the pound is worth less money, that translates to less money to spend abroad.” worth less money, that translates to less money to spend abroad. i am around all afternoon and will be keeping an eye on what happens with the pound. some analysts are saying that, depending on the detail we get from theresa may about the possible reasons, if she confirms that the vote is being postponed, depending on the reasons that are given, that could affect the direction of the pound throughout the afternoon. we will keep an eye on it and bring you updates on any key movements a little later but now, simon, back to you. thank you very much. you make an important point. it is our understanding that that is what she will say, that the vote is being delayed but no official confirmation from downing street but with all the speculation around, they have not put anybody off that idea.

sir graham brady, the chair of the 1922 committee, says he is looking for progress on the agreement and that he is sceptical about the eu standing firm on their position on the irish backstop. i think it was a statement due this afternoon and we will see what is in the statement. i made my views clear last week. i think unless we have got the agreement to a point where you can get a majority in the house of commons, there is no point in having the vote tomorrow and hope we will move onto that. what is the mood in the conservative party right now? we are looking for progress on the agreement and hoping we can get toa the agreement and hoping we can get to a point where we can support the government and get the measure three. the eu does not seem to want to budge on the backstop or anything else. we are also told that the eu does like the backstop, we are told it is illegal under eu law so it would be odd to insist on it being permanent if you don't like it and it's against the law. that was graham brady speaking a short time ago. in the last few minutes theresa

may has begun her rather short journey to the house of commons where she will be making that speech at 3:30pm. whilst the decision was made this one, it was thought she try to convince mps to back her deal by suggesting the northern ireland backstop, the main item they object to, could be modified in some way but as we have been hearing from brussels, it is something they are saying is out of the question. we can talk more about it with our chief political correspondent, vicki young. it is a remarkable afternoon and whatever she said there are a variety of things that could happen in the next few hours that change british politics. the question will be why is she doing it. we know the reason she is doing it because she was facing a defeat on such a huge scale that i think they would have been worried in downing street that she could not survive it and her premiership could be over because of the scale of the defeat. i think she

will say to mps, i'm listening to you, i understand your concerns about the backstop and she will presumably make the point that 98% of the withdrawal agreement could get through the house of commons but it is the bit about the backstop that was always the sticking point. it is also the point that the eu will not budge on and they have said that today. i think it will come down to it being legally binding or doctor. tory mps say they need something legally binding for the uk —— legally binding or not. that is the bit that you will not budge on. we heard from sir graham brady saying he is hoping for progress to be made on the talks with the eu will stop he will not let on whether he has got 48 letters in his possession until he has them but is there a feeling that tory backbenchers are writing letters saying this is the moment for a change of leader? i think so but as we saw a few weeks ago, they say they are and don't always do it. as

they are and don't always do it. as the news was filtering out this morning i was at the house of commons as mps were finding out, sometimes from me, that it is being delayed and the reaction was that this is the end of her, letters will go in, even those who are planning to vote for the deal described it as the end days. they really don't think that, in the long term, she will stay as their leader and prime minister but the question is, how in the short term she can survive for. but i think there might be others who are saying, ok, it is gone. i think the eurosceptics, she is in some ways doing what they want because she is saying, i'm listening to you and i will go back to brussels to try to get some kind of change. which will bite her time but her authority is now running out, isn't it? yes, and some would say that after that general election where she lost the conservative majority, that was why she was in the position she is in because she is relying on the dup who are not

supporting her when it comes to brexit although they had insisted they would support her in a confidence motion but that is the problem, she is lacking authority and many in her party do not want her there for the long term. one said that they need somebody who can go out and sell the deal and that she could not sell a bag of chips! that is her party, there are those in the labour party who might feel that this is their moment to pounce. the question about whether they put ina the question about whether they put in a confidence motion in the government, nicola sturgeon interestingly has put pressure on labour saying they should do it. the snp mps would support that the issue there is you would end up, she could wind up because the dup would support her. thank you very much. all of that underlining just how important this speech to the house of commons will be in just over half an hour, theresa may fighting for her political life. we can have a look at the weather

now. hello. the day started on a bright note for many and even though we have had more high cloud around than in recent days, it stayed reasonably bright in eastern areas. you can see the cloud on the satellite picture filtering down from the north and west, though looming large in the atlantic is the next weather system. but actually, this will be kept at bay for the next couple of days as high pressure across iberia extends its influence northwards across the united kingdom and into scandinavia eventually. as we head through this evening and overnight, it will again turn rather chilly under the starry skies in eastern areas, just a thin cloud around here, not enough to arrest the fall in temperatures so you can see a fairly widespread frost across scotland and eastern parts of england. perhaps not quite as widespread as last night. but even further west, despite it being a little milder, if the cloud breaks it could turn rather misty and murky with some patchy fog first thing on tuesday morning. but tuesday does look cloudier than monday for many of us. not necessarily any warmer but we will perhaps see more sunshine for the north of scotland, to pick a couple of areas, and again across the eastern side

of england, east anglia perhaps into lincolnshire and parts of yorkshire. whilst we have had a few showers around through the day today, it is more likely we will pick up some rain later on across northern ireland, a few pockets of drizzle elsewhere, nuisance value more than anything else on that southerly breeze, but nothing significant. similarly, going through tuesday evening and overnight, we could see a little more rain pepping up but it will not amount to a great deal, it will just stop the temperatures again from falling quite as low tuesday night into wednesday. you can see the frost is not as widespread, it will be more in the countryside but it will feel cold on wednesday. we are starting to pull in some drier, colder air from not too far away to the east which will allow some brighter weather again for east anglia, possibly the east midlands and other eastern parts of england and again the north of scotland. but, for most of us, there will be a good deal of cloud except for northern ireland where we should see some sunshine coming through as well into the afternoon. but, despite pulling in that south—easterly breeze, it is a chilly direction so we have not much atlantic air close to us at all.

those weather fronts have been squeezed out, not much rain on them through thursday but possibly the end of thursday into friday we could see some more significant rain coming into the south and west. it doesn't look as if a change to slightly milder conditions will take place at the weekend but we could see some hill snow as well. goodbye. welcome to a bbc news special from westminster. i'm simon mccoy. the prime minister is preparing to make a statement to the house of commons in half an hour's time — after deciding not to go ahead with tomorrow's vote on her brexit deal — in the face of almost certain defeat — european colleagues say there's no chance of renegotaiting the deal. it took over a year and a half to negotiate, it has the support of 28 governments, and it is not possible to reopen any aspect of that agreement without reopening all aspects of it. political reaction across westminster has been swift — including from the head of the powerful 1922 of conservative mps.

i think we're looking for progress on the agreement and hoping we can get to a point where we can support the government and get this matter through. labour leaderjeremy corbyn says calling off the vote is a desperate step at the 11th hour. the scottish first minister says she will support any vote of no confidence in the prime minister. the democratic unionist party leader nigel dodds says few people accept this as the best deal. quite frankly it is a bit of a shambles, and they need to realise that when they cross red lines, they are in trouble. and this morning the european court ofjustice confirmed that britain could indeed cancel brexit altogether — without consulting the other nations of the eu. good afternoon.

this is a bbc news with a special programme from westminster where the bbc understands theresa may has pulled the crucial commons vote tomorrow on her brexit deal after consulting with her cabinet this morning. it comes amid speculation she was about to lose it heavily. the labour leaderjeremy corbyn described the decision to postpone the vote as a desperate step at the 11th hour. let's take a closer look at today's developments. the prime minister is to give a statement to mps at half past three this afternoon — where she will formally announce the delay to the vote on her brexit deal. this will be followed by a statement from the commons leader, andrea leadsom. already today, judges at the european court ofjustice, ruled that the uk can suspend the brexit process at any time — without the eu's permission — they ruled this could be done without altering the terms of britain's membership. the brexit secretary, stephen barclay will give the government's reaction later.

and on thursday, eu leaders will meet in brussels for a summit, where brexit isn't formally on the agenda, but events at westminster, will more than likely change that. in the last leader of the dup, the party that the prime minister relies on, has treated her response. this report is from our political correspondent, chris mason. first thing this morning, peterhead fish market, and the big sell was still on. when a cabinet minister is wearing a baseball cap, a white coat and a pair of wellies, he's holding a fish and there are cameras in tow, you can be sure they are hawking something. the scottish secretary's produce was the government's eu withdrawal agreement and he sounded pretty definitive. do you think that there should be a delay on the meaningful vote?

the prime minister has been clear the vote's going ahead and i believe it should go ahead. people have to make up their minds, but when they do that they don't just look at the deal itself, they have to look at alternatives. but look at this... will it go ahead? i certainly hope so. the prime minister's confirmed that so i look forward to supporting her as it goes ahead tomorrow. a fellow cabinet minister sounding rather less certain. yes, it's been one of those mornings where things have been changing this morning minute by minute. downing street let it be known that nothing was off the table, that the prime minister was speaking to fellow eu leaders on the phone, and perhaps the withdrawal agreement could be reopened, renegotiated, but the details of the backstop, that insurance policy to keep the border open on the island of ireland, could be revisited. then the prime minister's official spokesperson told us the vote was still on for tomorrow, but source after source

was telling us it was off. now we know the prime minister will give a statement in the commons this afternoon. the news that the prime minister is going to be backing out of putting this vote to parliament tomorrow is, i think, an admission that she has got no chance of having her brexit proposal get through. but is it realistic that the eu will give ground? the deal that is there, which is the deal between the uk and eu, is not going to change. particularly the legal language of the withdrawal treaty. and the foreign secretary speaking a few hours ago seemed to agree with him. this is their best and final offer. i think the prime minister's has made it clear that she's not totally comfortable with some elements of the backstop. but, in the end, this is the deal on the table, it gives us the vast majority of things that people voted for, and there are real risks if we don't grab this opportunity while we have it.

it's been a busy day, and it's only lunchtime. chris mason, bbc news, at westminster. well sir graham brady, the chair of the 1922 committee, says he is looking for progress on the withdrawal agreement and that he is sceptical about the eu standing firm the on their position on the irish backstop. i think there is a statement this afternoon. we will see what is in that statement. my view is clear, last week i made it clear that unless we got the agreement to a point that we can get a majority in the house of commons, there is no point in having the vote tomorrow. i hope we will move on to that point. what is the mood of the conservative party right now? i think we are looking for progress on the agreement, and hoping we can get to a point where we can support the government and get this matter through. but the eu doesn't seem to want to budge on the backstop or anything else? well, we're also told that the eu does not like the backstop, we are told by the attorney general the backstop is actually illegal under eu law.

it would be very odd to insist on it being permanent if you don't like it and it's against the law. with me is our chief political correspondent, vicki young. what she is going to say. we know that she is good to say that the vote will not happen tomorrow, but she has got to say why she has taken that decision. she won't presumably say that it was because she was facing one of the biggest defeat in parliamentary history, she will presumably say that she is listening to concerns about the backstop. interestingly, our colleague in brussels, adam fleming, says that he is hearing that the prime minister is hearing that the prime minister is trying to get more of in the withdrawals agreement, you will remember that the prime minister co nsta ntly remember that the prime minister constantly made the case that the backstop is just the fallback ——

fallback position, we have got a transition period first, we can then extent that transition period, no need for us to drop into the backstop need for us to drop into the ba cksto p if need for us to drop into the backstop if we can get the trade deal done in time. the fear of brexiteers and others is that the eu will not have any incentive to get that trade deal done in time and we will stay in the backstop. clearly what it is hearing, is that the prime and there is trying to beef up that legal language, that it is not just best endeavours, that they are somehow forced to really try hard to make sure that trade you'll happens. mac but the question is, will that be enough? will they first will give that? there could be a geek in the wording. we have been that the withdrawal agreement is done and dusted, and it is not being reopened. that has changed overnight. now everything is on the table, they are trying to look at all things, but the idea that the backstop will go completely is simply not been to happen. it could be some change all of the wording

might mean if you conservative mps could be persuaded to back theresa may's deal when she decides to bring it back to the house of commons. and ginger wording is one thing, a change of heart is quite another. —— aof change of heart is quite another. —— a of wording. a change of heart, which we saw a few hours ago, it's quietening else. i suppose, last week we talked, and i said i couldn't see how they could go into a vote knowing that they were going to lose, not just a vote knowing that they were going to lose, notjust by 40 or 50, but potentially battle over 100 votes. in that goods never have been done before, and something —— that would never have happened before thumbing secretion. if the scale of the defeat was so huge, it was not looking like it would be such a small debate. i think to some extent is this about her survival, but the question is whether her deal is dead as well, or whether she can somehow resurrected, and persuade people to

get behind it, but it does not look like it. arlene foster has said that the backstop has got to go. did not go well, that call, did it? no, i think the dup have been very consistent about their views on this, but they have said that they would be willing to support the government if it came to a confidence vote, but they are absolutely not on side. most tory mp plea thing you can delay the vote, but you have to explain why, of course, and show what path you are going to take in order to get to the point of leaving with some kind of deal. that is not at all clear at the moment. what we don't know is whether it will be any clearer in an hour or so. whilst you may be corrupted by david with watches

going on behind, of course, what are the options for labour. there may be those leading tojeremy colman —— speaking to jeremy those leading tojeremy colman —— speaking tojeremy corbyn and think this is a moment. there was one moment last week in one of the numerous debates where there were just conservatives arguing with each other, and labour were just just conservatives arguing with each other, and labour werejust hitting back and watching. they won't even bothering to get up and try and speak, because you could just see conservative mps totally disagreeing with each other. that is not to say that labour do not have their own desert agreement, somewhat the norway option, with a closer religionjob with the norway option, with a closer religion job with the european union, and there are some who want at another referendum, and some who might back the deal, but they are bit as well. they could bring a confidence motion, but i do think the prime minister would probably win it, because of the dup's support, but i think others are trying to pressurise labour to try and force that. ahead of her speech to the commons this afternoon, theresa may has been speaking at a lunch for the conservative friends of israel. this is a tweet from the executive editor of conservative home, mark wallace, who it shows a transcript of the prime minister's speech. what's striking is theresa may says, if the deal is rejected, none other will miraculously appear.

the choice would be between no brexit at all and a no—deal brexit. mark wallace is with me now. what else did the pm say this lunchtime? how much authority does she now have? nobody does know what will happen to her own plans tomorrow, never mind over the course of the next four months. even it has beach at the conservative friends of israel today, there were some odd addictions. she said this is the best deal, but she also says she realises that she need to reassure her colleagues as you need to work out what she can do. evidently evidently these creeping numbers, over the last few beats, which was meant to be a great tour of our country to persuade people to accept

the deal. they simply have not worked. lots of conservative mps saying they won't support it. at that point, the prime ministers sta rts that point, the prime ministers starts to think what possibly happens. what about certain breed you, and those letters, are they now conservative mps saying that this is the moment, we need to think about a new leader? there are some people who are holding off potentially for that vote, that could be one reason why the boat is being put back. —— vote. i was half everything gets weirder and two dozen 18. there is the other possibility that you end up the other possibility that you end up surviving because conservative mps are seeing that someone else will do the dirty work. nelson is the —— there also needs to be a vote

here. woman—mac there is also the question of a confidence vote. be fixed in column... a horrendous bit of messing with our constitution, did somebody say on as prime and is well—suited to be a party leader for example? we have heard from the irishman minister that he is very much singing in june. irishman minister that he is very much singing injune. if the backstop the one issue? there is a lot of unhappiness among the tories, but that has been the overriding issue. before we have even got a future edition ship trade deal, the idea of the ecj is the having some say over various aspects in the silence. it is a ministers usually controversial. the feeling of a lot of conservatives does reach things that we the promised would not

happen. how much time to dubai has up happen. how much time to dubai has up this afternoon? what we need to find out is how she was square that circle. if the deal cannot be reopened, she needs to reassure her p0p reopened, she needs to reassure her pop colleagues, how can you possibly do that? the only thing i can imagine is going to brussels and asking for a rear surrounds —— a reassurance. the problem is, no one trusts brussels, and... winker-mac for joining trusts brussels, and... winker-mac forjoining us. trusts brussels, and... winker-mac for joining us. —— trusts brussels, and... winker-mac forjoining us. —— thank you very much. let's just you what is happening in the commons. mps taking their places for what is expected to be one of the most important speeches for british politics. we will be bringing you that in 15 minutes' time. they will be watching that vote very closely in brussels. —— what happens without vote —— with

that vote. we have been hearing that those in brussels are not trusted, but we are now at a point where the people in brussels are going to have a decision here and they? true, and what people from the member states say is why should we be eu do something if there is no evidence that a disco to help in the uk, that it is not going to get voted on by parliament, and that there is even a consensus for it in the house of commons, otherwise we are back to where we have just been. had just broken to a official who received a single from theresa may over the weekend, and what they have to say was very interesting. they say that what theresa may is seeking is some kind of legal commitment from the eu that the infamous northern irish backstop will not be required. in other words, something that goes the and the word that already exist in the withdrawal agreement, which say that both sides will use that" best

endeavours", and act in good faith to negotiate a trade deal or arrangement in future that means that backstop will never be required. last week when the attorney general‘s legal advice was published on this, there was a paragraph that jumped out, published on this, there was a paragraph thatjumped out, which said that the language in the withdrawal agreement was not strong enoughin withdrawal agreement was not strong enough in the international law to compel the eu to get down and agreed that radio come what may, which meant that the backstop still looms large in front of everyone, or behind everyone, whatever direction we are in now. i think, from talking to this one person, and to just one person, it may not be what f1 things, but the premise might be trying to find a way of upgrading that language. now, if you listen to this clip from leo varadkar, as far

as the irish are concerned, that withdrawal agreement is closed. the withdrawal agreement including the backstop is the only agreement on the table. it took over a year and a half to negotiate, it has the approval of 28 governments, and it is up impossible to reopen an element of it without reopening the whole thing. i think ithinka i think a lot of concessions have been made a long the way. most recently be agreed there should be a review clause. i don't think we should ever forget how we got to this point. the united kingdom decided to leave the european union, and the uk government decided to take lots of options off the table, whether we are staying in the single market and the customs union, or northern ireland's specific backstop. so the reason that we have this situation is because of the red lines which the united kingdom itself laid down. there are at least two issues that i

can identify. what is the vehicle? what is the mechanism? if it has got to be legally binding, the only legally binding document is the withdrawal agreement, what is the legally binding mechanism that would get the prime minister what she seems to be seeking, or what we think she might have been seeking over the weekend. the second issue is, how do she solve that problem with the brexiteer backbenchers who say that the problem is the existence of the irish backstop at all,., not any kind of legal garnishing that goes around it about the future trade deal. that seems to beat two quite big obstacles. i think we will get a lot more detail when she stands up in the commons in not very long now. not very long now, and as you said that, our political editor, has been tweeting

with me is the conservative vice—chair paul scully who supports the prime minister's deal and the labour mp, stephen kinnock — a supporter of the people's vote campaign which is calling for another referendum. what can she say to give this decision any sense? i have heard nothing either way, so we will see what she says. i hope that if there is any delay, that there is some meat in the speech in order to give people the confidence to actually back the deal. what could that need be? while she has got a summit in a couple of days' time, to go to brussels. to have got to have something that actually will be satisfying people to back the deal, because frankly, as far as i'm concerned, it is the only way of

leaving in an orderly fashion. it also has to satisfy brussels, is that there is no point delaying thinner reason. commons is filling up thinner reason. commons is filling up as we speak. stephen, how much authority does theresa may have, and how much has she got now in comparison with if you hours ago before this decision?” comparison with if you hours ago before this decision? i mean this is deeply humiliating for the government and for the country. two is faced with two humiliating options, either go ahead and lose the vote, or pilots today. she is humiliated in both options. we must table a motion of no—confidence. humiliated in both options. we must table a motion of no-confidence. you the labour party wants to do that. no confidence in how or her party?” would suggest in her government. the end, we need a government that will deliver in this. i am really hoping that my party will commit to a norway class option. we need to turn

the agreement in his something meaningful, rather than the truckload of fudge that we currently have, and i'm hoping we go fora soft brexit along those lines. lots of but in there, but the first step is to make it clear to the how is that the prime minister and the government's legitimacy and authority is draining away. the problem is that the norway plus option means that we don't end freedom of movement. actually, even might want that, but his leadership wa nts might want that, but his leadership wants the general election. that is all they are interested in. what they end up doing, risks getting stephen's worst nightmare, jeremy corbyn in government. frankly, nothing else would change the arithmetic of parliament. do you expect that she has been humiliated, theresa may? i don't think so. she has got a tough gig. the labour party what a general election. the lib dems and the snp want to pretend

this is never happened. it is the conservative party... vince cable says he wants another vote,... every time he put that on twitter, you puts a hashtag with the words, exit from brexit ‘s. we know what his real motives are. we have our divisions, and actively, but at the end of the day, the only way to get an orderly way of leaving the eu is through a deal such as the one the prime minister have negotiated.” can't see how you could not define this as the most humiliating moment any british prime minister in modern political history. she has spent two years trying to sell this deal to the nation, as now on the big vote, she has pulled it. just on norway, two key articles in the eea

agreement gave in emergency brake and an emergency negotiation. but it's time to get to facts and some reality. this is a treaty —based right. you are also out of the european court of justice, right. you are also out of the european court ofjustice, we have got rules shipping through the options through the ecj... the reality is we have got to find a deal that commands the majority across both parties in the house of commons. there has always been a majority in the commons for a soft brexit. unfortunately the premise that has a tin ear on these things. are we closer to a no deal? you risk both sides, both sides risk the dimension position to the one that they hold comment of the ideological levers and the ideological remainers. i think that things have

shifted towards the people that support no brexit at all. stephen, in terms of the later lee —— labour leadership, there will be those within the party who will say that look, the government has never been weaker, the prime minister's authority has never been less, now is the time to pounce. why isn't anybody saying that? everybody seems to be very careful not to say that? in terms of the notion of no confidence, i think we should take it as soon as possible. i will say it as soon as possible. i will say it right now. assuming there is no ground—breaking it right now. assuming there is no ground— breaking news, we it right now. assuming there is no ground—breaking news, we should table it this afternoon. if we don't, the snp will. it is up to us to lead the line on this. we have said very clearly is our party co nfe re nce said very clearly is our party conference motion is we go through the gives. if we can't get the no—confidence motion, we look at all the other options. i think the first option should be norway plus. there

are other people who are campaigning for a people's vote. thank you very much both of you. ijust want for a people's vote. thank you very much both of you. i just want to show you what is happening in the commons. more and more people crowding into the chamber. it does promise to be a... perhaps one of the most watched commons sessions in recent history, and what notjust in the uk, but certainly in europe and in brussels, and that's where members of the european union, the european commission will be watching to see what theresa may has to say. i'm joined now by marcus fysh, a member of the european research group of conservative backbenchers, who are against theresa may's plan. so, are you breathing a sigh of relief that she had decided not to call this boat? well, i am glad that the government has tried to abandon trying to push this withdrawal

agreement through, because it is the wrong thing for the uk. it does not deliver on our manifesto or the referendum result. iam deliver on our manifesto or the referendum result. i am astonished they boarded before parliament. i think there are certainly questions about whether the way she has gone about whether the way she has gone about pulling it at the last minute, these are very credible whether it isa these are very credible whether it is a very credible thing to do. what she will do in brussels, i have got no idea. the problem is that the backstop that she is saying is what you want to try and and do, that is not the only thing that is wrong with the withdrawal agreement. there isa with the withdrawal agreement. there is a host of things that are very wrong with it. the ecj oversight, the extendable transition that allows russells to inject —— brussels to inject regulation, poison into our economy, these are things that should not be considered, and expect mps to vote for. but the risk of what you are

saying, of course, particularly given this morning's judgment from the european court ofjustice, this loses brexit altogether. many will say that, looks, we havejust had enough. it's very easy. we don't need members of the eu to say we ee, need members of the eu to say we agree, we can just stay on the existing terms. people are so fed up, that you are handing it to them. i don't accept that at all. what happened this morning with the ecj judgment is a taste of what we would involved in the years to come should we sign this withdrawal agreement, should be accepted. we should be weighed —— we would be waiting for the ecj to hand down theirjudgment, and the bbc would be breathlessly reporting it. everybody is breathlessly reporting it, because none of us ever breathlessly reporting it, because none of us ever seen breathlessly reporting it, because none of us ever seen anything like this before. and many people are watching you right now and saying, have you got to a point where the prime minister loses her authority, toa prime minister loses her authority, to a point where minutes after her

own offices saying, no, no, no, the vote is going ahead, we get a call saying no it's not. but there is a better way of doing this negotiation. people like me have been trying to put forward constructive proposals, getting an advance of freedom trade agreement, and getting the currently available regulations and laws that allow technical procedures to be able to keep no hard border in ireland. that is what we need to focus on now. that is what the government needs to do that too. what can she say in the house of commons in the next few minutes that makes you believe that she can stay on and see this process through? i think many will question whether she is the right person to be doing this. i don't think there is much confidence. who? i did think the advisers around her are giving good advice, or whether she can judge good advice. it is because

this situation is pretty unforgivable, in my opinion. in which case, as we look at theresa may to sticking her seat there in the house of commons, so we are expected to hear from the house of commons, so we are expected to hearfrom her any moment, who, if not her, who is it? looks, i think any of the leading brexiteers could make a better attempt at it. i think it is very important to have somebody that actually sees the point of what brexit is about, and understands all of the technicalities. i think she has wanted to try to highly aligned to the eu. she has wanted to be in the customs union, she has had duff advice from people like philip hammond, greg clark, and that is a problem. that advice should never have been listened to, because it doesn't create the problems the government has been tried to say it does. if she accused you of this loyalty, would she have a point? no, i have been loyal, one thing to change, laying out the different ways in which she should and working

with the government, trying to get that done for many months but in july, when they did the swap with a different policy at the last minute in chequers, that was the point when i realised they were going down a different path which was not going to honour our manifesto pledges. if anything, it is the government that has been disloyal to the people by putting this forward. you talk about people and we can hear noise with both sides very vociferous outside, both sides very vociferous outside, both accusing politicians of letting them down. she will not be able to please everybody and never has been able to. no, the referendum was called because it was a binary choice which parliament felt unable to make. it gave it to the people and it is a binary choice, there is not a compromise option that honours the referendum result, that was the point of putting it to a referendum in the first place. i must let you go. thank you very much forjoining

us. go. thank you very much forjoining us. we are watching the house of commons and waiting fortjohn bercow to call the prime minister to her feet for what could be one of the most important political speeches of her life. with that authority many describing as ebbing away after the decision, we still believe, to postpone the proposed vote tomorrow on her brexit deal. as i say, not just people here in the commons who are waiting to hear what she has to say but those in brussels who have been negotiating for the last two yea rs, been negotiating for the last two years, those who felt they had gone as far as possible and have agreed to the deal that theresa may has given to parliament. i suspect we are seconds away from her being called. we are still discussing the

issue of housing in the house of commons with john brokenshire. james brokenshire. stilljohn bercow is sitting in his seat so we are waiting for him to call the prime minister. there are two other state m e nts minister. there are two other statements to be made after the prime minister has spoken, one from the leader of the house, andrea leadsom, who will be providing a commons business statement because of course commons business, with this delay, will change. tomorrow was supposed to be the final day of the debate and much may be read into what will be done instead. following that, the brexit secretary, stephen barclay, will make a statement on the eu exit article 50, the european court ofjustice statement this morning. we can hearfrom theresa may. thank you, mr speaker, and i would like to make a statement on exiting the european union. we have now had three days of debate on the

withdrawal agreement, setting out the terms of our departure from the eu and the political declaration setting out our future relationship after we have left. i have listened very carefully to what has been said in this chamber and out of it. laughter to what has been said in this chamber and outer by members from all sides. from listening to those views it is clear that while there is broad support for many of the key aspects of the deal, on one issue, the northern ireland backstop, there remains widespread and deep concern. asa remains widespread and deep concern. as a result, if we went ahead and held the vote tomorrow, the deal would be rejected by a significant margin. we will therefore defer the vote scheduled for tomorrow and not proceed to divide the house at this time. i set out in my speech opening the debate last week the reasons why

the debate last week the reasons why the backstop is a necessary guarantee to the people of northern ireland and why, whatever the future relationship you want, there is no deal available that does not include the backstop. behind all those arguments are some inescapable fa cts . arguments are some inescapable facts. the fact that northern ireland shares a land border with another sovereign state. the fact that the hard—won peace that has been built in northern ireland over the last two decades has been built around a seamless border. and the fa ct around a seamless border. and the fact that brexit will create a wholly new situation. on the 30th of march, the northern ireland — ireland border will, for the first time, become the external frontiers of the european union's single market and customs union. the challenge this poses must be met,

not with rhetoric, but with real and workable solutions. businesses operate across that border, people live their lives crossing and re—crossing it everyday. i have been there and spoken to some of those people, they do not want their everyday lives to change as a result of the decision we have taken. they do not want return to our —— a hard border. if this house cares about preserving our union, it must listen to those people because our union will only ensure with their consent. we had hoped the changes we had secured to the backstop would reassure members that we could never be trapped in it indefinitely. i hope the house will forgive me if i ta ke hope the house will forgive me if i take a moment to remind it of those changes. the customs element of the backstop is now uk wide. it no longer splits our country into two customs territories. this also means that the backstop is now an

uncomfortable arrangement for the eu so uncomfortable arrangement for the eu so they will not want it to come into use or persist for long if it does. both sides are now legally committed to using best endeavours to have our new relationship in place before the end of the implementation period ensuring the backstop is never used. if our new relationship is not ready, we can choose to extend the implementation period, further reducing the likelihood of the backstop coming into use. if the backstop ever does come into use, we now do not have to get their new relationship in place to get out a bit, alternative arrangements that make use of technology could be put in place instead. the treaty is now clear that the backstop can only ever be temporary and there is now a termination clause. but i am clear, from what i have heard in this place and from my own conversations, that these elements do not offer a

sufficient number of colleagues at the reassurance they need. i spoke toa number of the reassurance they need. i spoke to a number of eu leaders over the weekend and, in advance of the european council, i will go to see my counterparts in other member states and the leadership of the council and commission. i will discuss with them the clear concerns that this house has expressed. we are also looking closely at new ways of empowering the house of commons to ensure that any probation for a backstop has democratic legitimacy and to enable the house to place its own obligations on the government, to ensure that the backstop cannot be in place indefinitely. mr speaker, having spent the best part of two years poring over the detail of two years poring over the detail of brexit, listening to the public‘s ambitions and, yes, theirfears, and testing the limits of what the other side is prepared to accept, i am in absolutely no doubt that this deal is the right one. it honours the result of the referendum... order,

the remainder of the statement must be heard and i invite the house to hear it with courtesy and for the avoidance of doubt and the benefit of those attending to our proceedings who are not members of the house, i emphasise that, as per usual, i will call everyone who wants to question the prime minister. but meanwhile, please hear her. the prime minister. it honours the result of the referendum, to protect jobs, security and the result of the referendum, to protectjobs, security and our union, but it also represents the very best deal that is actually negotiable with the eu. i believe in it, as do many members of this house, and i still believe there is a majority to be won in this house in support of it if i can secure additional reassurance on the question of the backstop and that is what my focus will be in the days ahead. but mr speaker, if you take a step back, it is clear that this house faces a much more fundamental question. does this house want to

deliver brexit? and... a clear message from the snp, but if the house does, does it want to do so through reaching an agreement with the eu? if the answer is yes, and i believe that is the a nswer of is yes, and i believe that is the answer of the majority of this house, then we all have to ask ourselves whether we are prepared to make a compromise because there will be no enduring and successful brexit without some compromise on both sides of the debate. many of the most controversial aspects of this deal, including the backstop, are simply inescapable fact of having a negotiated brexit. those members who continue to disagree need to shoulder the responsibility of advocating an alternative solution that can be delivered. and do so

without ducking its implications. if you want a second referendum to overturn the result of the first, be honest, that this risks dividing the country again. be honest, that this risks dividing the country again when, as a house, we should be striving to bring it back together. if you want to remain pa rt back together. if you want to remain part of the single market and the customs union, the open that this would require free movement, rule taking across the economy and ongoing financial contributions, none of which are, in my view, compatible with the result of the referendum. if you want to leave without a deal, be upfront that in the short term this would cause

significant economic damage to parts of our country who can least afford to bear the burden. i do not believe that any of those courses of action command a majority in this house. but notwithstanding that fact, for as long as we failed to agree a deal, the wrist of an accidental no—deal increases —— the risk. so the government will step up its work in preparation for that potential outcome and the cabinet will hold further discussions on it this week. the vast majority of us, mr speaker, accept the result of the referendum and want to leave with a deal. we have a responsibility to discharge, if we will the ends, we must also will that means. i know members across the house appreciate how important that responsibility is and i'm very grateful to all members on

this side of the house and a few on the other side as well who have backed this deal and spoken up for it. many others, i know, have been wrestling with their consciences, particularly over the question of the backstop. seized of the need to face up for the challenge posed by the irish border but genuinely concerned about the consequences. i have listened, i have heard those concerns and i will now do everything i possibly can to secure further assurances. if i may conclude, mr speaker, on a personal note. on the morning after the referendum, two and a half years ago, i knew that we had witnessed a defining moment for our democracy. places that did not get a lot of attention at elections and which did not get much coverage on the news we re not get much coverage on the news were making their voices heard and saying they wanted things to change. i knew in that moment that parliament had to deliver for them. but of course that does notjust mean delivering brexit, it means working across all areas, building a strong economy, improving public services... tackling social

injustices. to make this a country that truly works for everyone. the prime minister must be heard. the prime minister must be heard. the prime minister. tackling social injustices to make this a country that truly works for everyone, a country where nowhere and nobody is left behind. and these matters are too important to be afterthoughts in our politics, they deserve to be at the centre of our thinking but that can only happen if we get brexit done and get it done right. even though i voted remain, from the moment i took up the responsibility being prime minister of this great country, i have known that my duty is to honour the result of that throat and i had beenjust as determined to protect the jobs that put food on the table of families —— that vote. and the security

partnerships that keep each one of us are partnerships that keep each one of us are safe and that is what this deal does. it gives us control of our borders, money and laws, it protects jobs, security and our borders, money and laws, it protectsjobs, security and our union, it is the right dealfor britain. iam union, it is the right dealfor britain. i am determined to secure the reassurance of this house requires to get this deal over the line and deliver for the requires to get this deal over the line and deliverfor the british people and i commend this statement to the house. jeremy corbyn! thank you, mr speaker and thank you, mr speakerand i thank you, mr speaker and i thank the prime ministerfor a copy of thank you, mr speaker and i thank the prime minister for a copy of the statement before we met here this afternoon. we are in extremely serious and unprecedented situation. the government has lost control of events and is in complete disarray. it has been evident for weeks that the prime minister's deal did not have the competence of this house. yet she ploughed on regardless, reiterating this is the only deal

available. can she be clear with the house,is available. can she be clear with the house, is she seeking changes to the deal or mere reassurances? does she therefore accept the statement from therefore accept the statement from the european commission at lunchtime saying that it was the only deal possible, we will not renegotiate our position has not changed? ireland's tee shot, leo barack obama has said it is not possible to renegotiate the irish border backstop, stating it was the prime minister's own red lines that made the backstop necessary —— lee over . can the promise to be clear, is she now ready to drop further red lines in order to make progress? cant the prime minister confirm that the deal presented to this house is not off the table but will be represented with a few assurances? bringing back the same botched deal

either next week or injanuary, and can she be clear on the timing, will not change its fundamental flaws and deeply held objections right across this house, which go far wider than the backstop alone. mr speaker, this isa the backstop alone. mr speaker, this is a bad dealfor britain, a bad dealfor is a bad dealfor britain, a bad deal for our economy is a bad dealfor britain, a bad dealfor our economy and is a bad dealfor britain, a bad deal for our economy and a bad is a bad dealfor britain, a bad dealfor our economy and a bad deal for our democracy. our country deserves better than this. the deal damages our economy and it is not just the opposition saying that, the government to's own analysis shows this deal would make us worse off. if the prime minister cannot be clear that she can and will renegotiate a deal, then she must make way. and, if she is going back to

brussels, then she needs to build a consensus in this house. since it appears business has changed for the next two days, it seems not only possible but necessary that this house debates at the negotiating mandate that the prime minister ta kes to mandate that the prime minister takes to brussels. there is no point at all in this prime minister bringing back the same deal again which clearly does not support —— is not supported by this house. we have ensured two years of shambolic negotiations, red lines which have been boldly announced and then cast aside. we are now on our third brexit secretary and it appears each one of them has been excluded from these vital negotiations. we were promised a precise and substantive document and got a vague 26 page

wish list. they have become the first government ever in british history to be held in contempt of parliament. the government is in disarray, uncertainty is building for business, people are in despair at the state of these failed negotiations, and concerned about what it means, about theirjobs, their livelihood and their communities. and the fault for that lies solely at the door of this shambolic government. the prime minister is trying to buy herself one last chance to save this deal. if she does not take on board the fundamental changes required, then she must make way for those who can. the prime minister. i hoped i cant respond fairly briefly to the right

honourable gentleman. the right honourable gentleman appeared to argue on one hand that it was not possible to change the deal because the eu had said it was the only deal and on the other hand that the only thing he would accept was the deal being renegotiated. the right honourable gentleman quoted the european union as saying that this was the only deal and then goes onto say that the whole deal needs to be renegotiated. the fundamental question that members of this house have to ask themselves is whether they wish to deliver brexit and on they wish to deliver brexit and on the result of the referendum. all the result of the referendum. all the analysis shows that if you wish to deliver brexit and honour the result of the referendum, then the deal that does that that best protects jobs and our economy is the deal that is been put forward. everybody will have his or her chance but the questions have been put and the answers must similarly be heard. the prime minister. that

is the fundamental question for members of this house, to deliver on and on the result of the referendum but do it in a way that protects jobs and the economy and that is what this deal does. the right honourable gentleman talks about a number of issues. he wants to be in the customs union such that free movement and would have to be accepted but he refuses to accept that any deal requires a backstop because that is our commitment to the people of northern ireland. he claims he wants to negotiate trade deals yet wants to be in the customs union, fully in the customs union that would not enable us to negotiate those deals and finally says about the uncertainty for british business. i can tell the right honourable gentleman that the biggest uncertainty for british business lies not in this deal but on the front bench of the labour party. order. before i look to the father

of the house and then other colleagues, i want to say the following. although the government to's intention to hold this debate at this inordinately late stage has been widely leaked to the media in advance, i felt it only appropriate to hear what is proposed before advising the house. halting the debate after no fewer than 164 colleagues have ta ken debate after no fewer than 164 colleagues have taken the trouble to contribute will be thought by many members of this house to be deeply discourteous. indeed, in the hours since news of this intention emerged, many colleagues from across the house have registered that view to me in the most forceful terms.

having ta ken the to me in the most forceful terms. having taken the best procedural advice, colleagues should be informed that there are two ways of doing this. the first, and in democratic terms the infinitely preferable way, is for a minister to move at the outset of the debate that the debate be adjourned. this will give the house the opportunity to express its view in a vote, whether or not it wishes the debate to be brought to a premature and inconclusive end. i can reassure ministers that i would be happy to acce pt ministers that i would be happy to accept such a motion so that the house can decide. the alternative is

for the government unilaterally to decline to move today's business which means that the house is not only deprived of its opportunity to vote upon the substance of the debate tomorrow, but also that it is given no chance to express its view today on whether the debate should or should not be allowed to continue. i politely suggest that, in any courteous, respectful and mature environment, allowing the house to have a say, it's say, on this matter, would be the right and, dare i say it, the obvious course to take. let us see if those who have assured this house and the public over and over assured this house and the public overand overand over assured this house and the public over and over and over again that this supremely important vote is

going to take place tomorrow without fail, wish to rise to the occasion. mr kenneth clarke. mr speaker, on the question over europe, this house is notjust divided into parties put into factions and it becomes clear that at the moment there is no predictable majority for any single course of action going forward. so, what might right honourable friend the prime minister agree that no other governments are going to start negotiations with us on any new arrangement while the british continue to explore what exactly it is they can get a parliamentary majority to agree to? furthermore, we are strictly bound and quite rightly to the good friday agreement and the issue of a permanently open

border in ireland. so, does she agree that it is particularly folly for a large fraction in this house to continue for an argument that we should insist to the other governments that the british will have a unilateral right to declare an end to that open border at a time of their choosing, which is why the backstop remains inevitable? can i say to my right honourable and learned friend but i certainly agree. i think none of the eternal —— make alternative arrangements that have been suggested in this house actually would command a majority of this house. but he is also right that we retain our absolute mitten to the belfast good friday agreement and the commitments that the united kingdom government made within that agreement —— absolutely committed to. and any agreement being negotiated with the eu, be that either of the other two

options that are normally quoted, the norway option of some form or the norway option of some form or the canada option over some form, would require negotiation, could risk the possibility of there being a period of time when the relationship was not in place and therefore would indeed require a backstop. kirsty blackman. iwould like to thank the prime minister for the statement in advance and thank you, mr speaker, for the benefit of your words on how to proceed. the events of the past few hours have highlighted that this is a government in a total state of collapse. the prime minister has been forced to pull the vote tomorrow in a stunning display of —— pathetic cowardice. the vote would have shown the will of this house but this government is focused on saving the prime minister's job and her party instead of doing what is right for this country. she is abdicating her responsibility. her deal will make people poorer, it will lead to years of further uncertainty and difficult

negotiation with no guarantee that a trade deal can even be struck. it does not have —— have the support of the backbenches and indeed no support from the majority are benches across this place, no support from the scottish parliament and no support from the welsh assembly. why has it taken the prime minister this long to face up to reality? her deal was dead in the water at long before this morning. last week it was this deal or no deal. she has to be clear with this house about what has changed. scotla nd house about what has changed. scotland voted overwhelmingly to remain in the eu but yet again our views are being ignored, as they have been throughout this disastrous and incompetent brexit process. back in 2014 scotland was promised the strength and security of the uk but the reality has been a westminster colla pse the reality has been a westminster collapse and chaos. we were promised an equal partnership but we have been treated with contempt. mr speaker, the prime minister has lost the confidence of her own benches

and she has failed to convince this out of a plan for exiting the eu. we simply cannot go on like this. it is clear the prime minister is incapable of taking decisions about future and downing street cannot negotiate anymore either with the eu or the tory backbenches. what she is really scared of is allowing this house to determine the way forward and allowing the public the opportunity to remain in the eu. she knows she has lost but she is still wasting precious time. we need the prime minister to be clear about when the house will vote on this deal. this government and the prime minister have failed. it is time they got out of the way. prime minister, members across this house do not want your deal, the eu do not wa nt to do not want your deal, the eu do not want to renegotiate. is not the only to break this deadlock to put it to the people? the honourable lady asked what i have been doing. what i have been doing is listening to

members of this house who have identified a very specific concern with the deal that was negotiated. asi with the deal that was negotiated. as i said, we had negotiated within that deal a number of aspects to address the issue around the permanence or otherwise of the backstop. those i had hoped would actually give sufficient confidence to members of this house. it has proved in discussions they have not and therefore we are going to work to get those further reassurances but i want to ensure... with other members of the house. if the shadow foreign secretary would have a little patience... the date of the vote was one of the questions asked by the scottish nationalist party andi by the scottish nationalist party and i will address the matter. the responsibility of this government is to deliver on the result of the referendum and do so in a way that is good for the whole of the united kingdom. that is what this deal does. i will be going, we are

deferring to vote and i will be going to seek those assurances. obviously there are two micro—parties in relation to this, the united kingdom and the eu, so we will be holding those discussions —— mac there are two parties. there is the legislation at the issue of the zist the legislation at the issue of the 21st of january date which is in legislation... the shadow foreign secretary is shouting as if it is the first time she has heard of it! i suspect she actually voted for it when it went through this house but there we are. the key point of the honourable lady's remarks is that they should go back to another vote of the public. i have said, she will not hear me say anything different, i believe it is important to honour the result of the referendum. i believe it is a matter of the duty of members of this house to honour

that referendum result, and i believe it is also a matter of faith in politicians, that those many people who are the first time ever, often many decades went out and voted for leaving the european union, that they are able to have the confidence that the politicians in this house delivered for them. mr iain duncan smith? i would like to focus my right honourable friend on theissue focus my right honourable friend on the issue of the backstop, as this is critical to what ever my right honourable friend conducts with the european union. but she not agree with me that now she has essentially suspended the remaining part of this debate, that it is incumbent on her and the government to go forward boldly to the eu, and remind them that they have already said, that not no matter what, no matter what arrangements would be in place,

there would be no hard border on the border of ireland, and so have the irish. so given that, would she now commit to going back to them to say, they need to reopen the withdrawal agreement, and insert into the withdrawal agreement a commitment to open borders, and take out those restrictions that would take away the power of control from this parliament to decide its future. can i say to my right honourable friend. two things. he is right that the european union has been clear about ensuring that there is no hard border between northern ireland and ireland. the european union have also been clear about the temporary nature of the backstop. so i think he is right, we should go boldly back to the european union on these issues, we have been rigourously and a robustly debating with them on this, and achieved a number of changes to the withdrawal agreement

in order to ensure that there could be that reassurance of the temporary nature of the backstop. but now, it is the meat and this government to go back to europe and to make the point that those reassurances have not been sufficient for members of this house. nothing should be off the table, but everybody should be very clear that there are, in calling for the reopening of the withdrawal agreement, that there are issues that would then be put back on the table, including the northern ireland only customs territory. said vincent cable. the fiasco today, the government has really lost authority. let me say that none of my colleagues —— my colleagues will fully support the leader of the opposition if you now proceed to a no—confidence vote as duty surely calls. specifically on the statement, can i ask the premise that how many of the heads of government that she telephoned over the weekend have indicated that she would —— they would consider the

irish backstop dispensable? the discussions we have consistently had, as! discussions we have consistently had, as i have indicated in my references to other arrangements, are that there should be a backstop to insure there is no hard border between northern ireland and ireland. the concern that has been raised, predominantly by colleagues, is the issue of the permanence or otherwise of that backstop, to make sure that it will not be be continued indefinitely. iwill sure that it will not be be continued indefinitely. i will be going back, and a number of european leaders that i have spoken to have indicated that they are open to discussions to find a way to provide reassurance on that point. mr speaker, the prime minister knows that the withdrawal agreement and political declaration are covering many legal issues beyond the backstop, important and vital as that is. these include for example the european, control over our own laws, questions relating to

compatibility with the eu withdrawal act of 2018. under the ministerial code, there is an absolute obligation to consult the attorney general in good time, before committing to critical decisions which involved considerations. the government, under the order of the house of the 4th of december must publish it is advised in full on both the withdrawal agreement and the framework. as we have seen that so the framework. as we have seen that so far the only advice that has been published is with regard to the northern ireland protocol. did the prime ministers seek the attorney general's advice under the code on both these matters in good time or not? and if she did seek his advice, why is that advice not been published. to my honourable friend, he has been asking me variations of this question in each of the state m e nts this question in each of the statements that i have done recently, and i am very clear that the government undertakes its

relation to the seating of legal advice entirely properly and appropriately. the government published a full legal position on the withdrawal agreement, a position in more detail than i think governments have previously published on any that occasion, or in any similar event. not only that, but the attorney general of course came to this house, made a statement and took many questions on this issues. frankly, what the prime minister says today is simply isn't credible, is it? i mean, this is impossible position for the government to find itself in. the prime minister says she is listening. but you talk about reassurances, and assurances. does she not get it by now, that the withdrawal agreement, legally binding text is unacceptable to this house? and she cannot pretend, going on defending the deal, when she

knows that if the vote had taken tomorrow, it would have been overwhelmingly been defeated. so please, prime minister, please do start listening, and come back with changes to the withdrawal agreement, or it will be voted down. under can i say to the gentleman, that the purpose of the announcement today that we would defer the vote, is precisely to be able to go and discuss with other european leaders, with the council and the commission, those further reassurances that are required by this house, in allusion to the issue that members of this house are concerned about. notably, whether or not the backstop, should it ever be used could be brought to an end, and that is exactly what we will be doing. i should encourage my honourable friend to ignore the cause of the opposition. i would

whisper via a prime minister who will listen. has she also had our west midlands manufacturing concerns that we should leave with a deal, deal. we did indeed listen to manufacture is up and down the country, as we were putting this deal together, and that desire to protect people'sjobs deal together, and that desire to protect people's jobs and livelihoods, it has and underpinned the deal we have. this deal does exactly that. the prime minister challenged others to be upfront about what they want, but she needs to be upfront, too. that it was her red line that created the problem of the border in ireland, that led to the border in ireland, that led to the backstop, that has brought her to the house of commons today in

such a weak position. can she tell the house where there is single of the house where there is single of the eu leaders that she spoke to over the weekend indicated that they we re over the weekend indicated that they were prepared to renegotiate article 20 of the backstop protocol, because in the absence of any such commitment, isn't counselling tomorrow's vote merely postponing the inevitable ? tomorrow's vote merely postponing the inevitable? can i say to the right honourable gentleman, that's theissue right honourable gentleman, that's the issue that we were very clear on with the european union generally shuns to the northern ireland border is there could not be a customs border down the irish sea. by october, we have persuaded them to enable a october, we have persuaded them to enablea uk october, we have persuaded them to enable a uk wide customs territory, rather than a northern ireland one. that was the key issue in relation to the border, that we had set as something that was an acceptable to the united kingdom, and we

negotiated that out of the proposal. i entirely share my right honourable friend's concern about the maintenance of the belfast agreement, the peace process in northern ireland, and an open border. but is not the reality of what has happened is that this brexit that is being negotiated highlights with total starkness, that far from recovering sovereignty, as has been proclaimed, we are in fact about to part with it, replacing a bilateral agreement with the irish government, sustained by referendums on both sides of the border, with an arrangement on which no one has been consulted, and ruthlessly undermines our sovereign rights. in those circumstances, and mindful of the fact that my burns—mac faces many differences that are not —— difficulties that are not of her making, surely we should go back to the public and ask what they want, and offered the

alternative of remaining in the eu. i say to my right honourable and leonard friend. i think every member of this house who has raised this issue of going back to the public on this matter, needs to consider very carefully the impact that that would have. i believe it would lead to a significant loss of faith in our democracy. i believe it would lead many people to question the role of this house and the role of members within this house. we gave people the decision, the people decided we should deliver on it. nothing has changed in the level of parliamentary concern about her deal since last week, but the prime minister has still sent her ministers out this morning, her official spokesman out at 11 this morning to say this vote was 100% going ahead. and yet we still now

don't know when she was to bring this vote back, or even when she wants this deal to be. does she not realise how chaotic and ridiculous this make our country. and given the importance of trust and credibility in this entire process, how could she possibly talk about duty and honour and they in politicians, when we cannot even trust the most basic things her ministers are saying. no, i should be clear with the right honourable lady and with the house that i consulted the cabinet late morning about the decision to defer the vote. that decision was taken because of an understanding of a concern that embers of this house has expressed about the backstop, happy discuss with embers of the house about reassurances that had previously been negotiated, whether they were consistent to allay those concerns. it is that issue that we will be going back to the european

union on, and it is on that issue that will be seeking this further reassurances. but i say once again, house have a responsibility and there will come a point where it will be up to every member of this house, to determine whether they are going to accept the result of the referendum, and deliver a dealfor the british people, that ensures a small exit —— smooth exit from brexit and protects jobs and livelihoods. mr speaker, as one of the 164 members you referred to, mr speaker, who have already spoken in this debate, can i assure the prime minister that i think it is more important that we end up with the right deal with the country, and what's most important for parliament, is that parliament is seen parliament, is that parliament is seen to take its responsibility, and if possible agree deal. given that as she rightly identifies, the irish

backstop has been the one element that has discouraged very many people from across the house through supporting this deal, can she give the house summer update from her conversations with european leaders over the last few days as to whether progress is possible on that, and therefore, can she give us some assurance that parliament will be able to the village responsibilities and agree a deal? i thank my right honourable friend for his comment, and of course, all of those members that have already spoken in the debate, those contributions continue to be an important contribution to be debate on this subject. i can give my right honourable friend be assured that having spoken to european leaders, they are open to european leaders, they are open to discussions with us on this particular issue, and i am confident that we will be able to see some further changes, of course that will be the matter for further negotiations. doesn't the prime

minister realise that she has handed over power not to people in this house, but she is handed over power to the people that she is going to negotiate with over there in europe? she looks very weak. and she is! the power that they want is to be able to demonstrate to every other country, that might be thinking about getting it of the eu, this has handed over them the power to be able to demonstrate that that is what britain is doing, deep british prime minister now does not know whether she is on this earth all... because of the action she has taken. mrs that share had a word for it. what she has done today, she has leo

varadkar —— she has f ri what she has done today, she has leo varadkar —— she has f r i t. what she has done today, she has leo varadkar -- she has f r i t. and i have every confidence that if i had not listened to members of this house the honourable gentleman would have stood up and said that i was incapable of listening to members of this house and conveyed about that. this hand is a huge amount of negotiating power to the other side in this negotiation. so, it must be time limited and our control, and that must be legally enforceable. is that must be legally enforceable. is that what she is seeking? can i say to my honourable friend, that the issue of the lesson of —— length of time that the backstop could or should be in place, if it is ever

used, and once again, it is the intention of neither side is that it be used, is a matter that is already addressed in the withdrawal agreement. people here are concerned as to the extent to which they can trust those assurances within the withdrawal agreement, and that is why it is important to go back and to get those further reassurances. the prime minister has changed her mind about the boat and has changed her mind about whether the backstop can be amended. if she can change her mind, why would see gesture if the british people have changed their minds for what they voted two years ago. can i say to the honourable lady, that she honestly think that if we were to have a further referendum, and it came out with a different result, people wouldn't then say we should have a third referendum to find out exactly what the british public wants. this

is not... and i say to the honourable lady, i also wonder whether if we had a second referendum and it came out with the same result, she would still be asking for a third referendum about this. we gave this parliament —— this. we gave this parliament —— this parliament give people the choice, the people decided they voted. we should deliver on it. mr speaker, far from being frit, voted. we should deliver on it. mr speaker, farfrom being frit, i think this prime minister has great courage in coming back to face this house, delayed the vote in efforts to get the best possible deal for this country. and quite frankly, people who voted in the referendum did so sometimes for the first time. and they decided to accept the result, no matter on which side they voted. surely, we should not be letting them down, because they will

see little point in exercising their vote again if the result is not honoured, and we call a second referendum. can i say to my honourable friend, i think she is absolutely right. i think those people, many of whom voted for the first time at all or in decades, when they voted in the referendum in 2016, will indeed question why should we vote in future if this parliament does not deliver on that boat. does as my right honourable friend says, people across the country, whether they voted leave all remain are saying this was the result, let's just get on with it, let's deliver it. in the light of this morning european judgment, let's deliver it. in the light of this morning europeanjudgment, —— european court judgment, which clarified that all options are available for our country, can i make the prime minister a sincere offer in the hope that she will at

least keep our options open. if she takes her brexit proposal back to the british public for a final say, and also allows the public the chance to stay in the european union, she can be assured of significant support from many on these benches. i say... significant support from many on these benches. isay... iappreciate these benches. isay... iappreciate the sincerity with which the right honourable gentleman has put his question, and made his point. but i do genuinely feel absolutely that it is important for this house to deliver on the vote that took place in 2016. the prime minister hasjust rather generously and i fear rather rooney is the elevated the honourable gentleman to the privy council. prime minister, you will

re call council. prime minister, you will recall how a number of class on these benches urged you indeed, bectu, to reach out across these benches, across this house, and indeed across our country, and find a compromise and a consensus, before you lay down your red lines, and before you began your negotiations. after three days of debating, and given the statement of the commission, this lunchtime, it is clear that nothing has been changed, and nothing will change. but the thing that is changing is the view of the british people. i know it's nearly the pantomime season, but oh yes it has! and that is why... and thatis yes it has! and that is why... and that is why honourable... order! order! the right honourable lady is

giving eloquent and furl special to her views, which is not entirely unknown, but the honourable lady must be heard, and she will be hard, and i'm not having any member of this has shouted down. that is not acceptable, and it will not happen. —— she will be heard. acceptable, and it will not happen. -- she will be heard. that is why, mr speaker, the honourable member first sunderland, and the honourable memberfor the metoo first sunderland, and the honourable member for the metoo hires leave areas, are now supporting a people's vote, because their constituents are entitled to change their mind, and young people are entitled to have a say about their future, because at the end of the day, they will bear the end of the day, they will bear the burden of brexit. i would urge the burden of brexit. i would urge the prime minister, we have found an impasse in this house. it is time now to take this back to the people and have a people's vote. the united

kingdom does not have a long tradition of holding referendums. we have had the scottish referendum, there was a referendum onjoining there was a referendum onjoining the european community in 1975, there was a referendum in 2016 on whether or not to leave the european union. in all of those votes, the government has taken a very clear view, that the result of those referenda should be respected. and i believe this referendum should be respected, as well. people outside these walls see a shambles of a government, and with this in mind, we will support the leader of the opposition should he as he showed table a motion of no—confidence. as of this morning, the european court of this morning, the european court ofjustice's ruling, it is within the prime minister's gift to take no deal of the table. will she today

rule at the threat of no deal, and be prepared to revoke article 50. the result of the european court of justice declaration, is clearly there have determined it is possible to unilaterally revoked article 50, but nobody should think that provoking article 50 is a short—term prevention of article 50. that would mean going back on the referendum and staying in the european union. when i spoke any debate, i made it clear that i was supporting the prime minister, but i did have concerns about the backstop and its indefinite nature. does she agree with me that given the eu has already recognised that this is a temporary arrangement, given that our attorney general has said that it will not be forever, and have means of challenging it illegally, it would be helpful, if our european partners could give more clarity as to how long it would take ——

challenging it illegally, it would be helpful, if our european partners could clarify how long it could take to leave the backstop.” could clarify how long it could take to leave the backstop. i think my honourable friend is it really right. the european union has already indicated that the backstop is temporary in nature, and therefore, i think it is entirely reasonable to ask them to give that further clarification about that temporary and spec of the backstop, and the ability to bring the backstop and the ability to bring the ba cksto p to and the ability to bring the backstop to an end. in my 27 years of this, i have rarely seen a government in such a chaotic phase, as the parameters that has caused the negotiations. last week, she said, and! the negotiations. last week, she said, and i quote, i caution honourable members, that not only the eu have made it clear that it cannot be reopened, we have agreed the deal and the deal is that. jazz now abandoned the vote and has come back to the house saying that

somehow be an openable deal is open again while she is seeking reassurances that will not be worth the paper they are written on, because she has done her legal deal already. why on earth doesn't she just abandon this dancing on the head of a pain and let us vote on this appalling deal. —— head of a pin. there is one aspect of that withdrawal agreement which has raised particular concerns. that aspect of the withdrawal agreement is already dealt with in the withdrawal agreement, through various assurances about the temporary nature of the backstop. those assurances have in discussions from colleagues, it is clear there isa from colleagues, it is clear there is a assurances from colleagues, it is clear there is a assurances are not from colleagues, it is clear there is a assurances are not sufficient, and we therefore go back to seek further reassurance on the nature of that temporary aspect of the backstop. signing away large numbers

of money would undermine our negotiating position on the backstop and the future partnership. we do not owe this money, and nothing is agreed until everything is agreed. and i say to my honourable friend, i know this is a point that he has passed before. and i roughly might that the house of lords came out with an opinion in religion to this, but there are other legal opinions in relation to the application of various #in various # in relation to the application of various... i believe, as the country, we should meet those obligations. the prime minister has said that she doesn't want a second vote, because it risks have it in the country again, but can i remind her that the united kingdom is not a country, it is a union of four nations. and already, that union is

divided, because two of those nations voted to remain. if she can't, she had conceded this afternoon that she cannot get this house to support her deal, said she really believes in the deal, why would she have the courage of her convictions and put that steel to the four nations of the uk, and give them a choice between higher deal or remaining in the european union, as the court ofjustice has said this morning is possible. why not put it back to the people by mr —— prime minister? i can recognise why somebody representing the snp would have a desire to try and change the result of a referendum after it has taken place, result of a referendum after it has ta ken place, but result of a referendum after it has taken place, but i would say to the honourable lady, that i have a nswered honourable lady, that i have answered the question in relation to go back to the people on a number of occasions this afternoon and on other occasions. i have not been lax in coming to this house and standing up in coming to this house and standing up in this chamber and answering questions on this matter. as can i

also point out to the honourable lady, we entered the european economic amenities as one united kingdom, and we will be leaving as one united kingdom. can i say to my right honourable friend, i think even without a deal would be incredibly bad news that this country, not least the manufacturing businesses across the midlands. can she confirm that the only way that happens if people refuse the deal which is an offer, we do leave on the 29th of march. my my right honourable friend is absolutely right, the only way to ensure there is not no deal is to ensure there is not no deal is to ensure there is a deal. the deal on the table is a good deal and we will be leaving in march next year. the prime minister has said she is going back for more reassurances on the backstop. there she accept that those reassurances, no matter how strong, will not be illegal and would you not think she would be

better able to negotiate if the eu knew that this house had overwhelmingly voted against the deal? i think the fact that i have indicated it is necessary to go back has sent a clear message to the european union about the importance of engaging on this particular issue and ensuring that there are the level of assurance required by members of this house that is sufficient for members of this house to believe they can have the confidence that the backstop is not indefinite. it is that potential indefinite. it is that potential indefinite nature of the backstop that has been raising concerns for members of this house and i believe it is that we should be addressing particularly. on the 7th of march, president tusk offered the uk wide ranging free—trade agreement which foundered on the issue of the northern ireland border. it is

therefore exasperating that the prime minister is still talking about the backstop as the only solution to this border. she has heard from the right honourable memberfor heard from the right honourable member for belfast north, it is a breach of the belfast agreement, even a breach of the articles of the act of union 1801. since then, she has met international customs experts, eight nobel prize winner, she knows that existing techniques and existing customs procedures can continue to deliver a seamless border. we'll see please at this late stage put the backstop and all its horrors behind her, go back to the european union and take up the offer made by president tusk using these modern, seamless customs techniques? can i perhapsjust say to my right honourable friend that the offer that the european union put to the united kingdom was for a

canada put to the united kingdom was for a ca na da style put to the united kingdom was for a canada style free—trade agreement for great britain because in order to deal with a seamless border between northern ireland and ireland, they wanted to separate northern ireland from the customs territory of great britain and therefore not have a single uk customs territory. in relation to the technical issues, the technical solutions might right honourable friend refers to, indeed we have continued to engage with those who put these forward but the question is not just about put these forward but the question is notjust about no physical infrastructure on the border. the question is about the extent to which people on both sides of the border are able to continue to lead their lives as they do today with no increased barriers or encumbrances to them leading their lives in that way and that is what i believe delivers on the seamless border which does indeed underpin the belfast good friday agreement. she said ina belfast good friday agreement. she said in a statement that this is the best deal and the only deal and it is time for all of us in this place

to face up to our responsibilities also we are ready to do that, prime minister, so put this deal to a vote in this house and if she is not prepared to, put it to a vote of the people. we are deferring the vote, we will seek... we will seek these further reassurances and on the issue of the vote to the people, the right honourable gentleman has heard my answer to that question several times already this afternoon. the exit date of the 29th of march will not be put off as well? we have actually put it into legislation and this government is committed to delivering exiting on the 29th of march. is the promise to clear she is seeking an exchange of letters of reassurance with the eu, not a

change to the text of the withdrawal agreement? i have said earlier that nothing is off the table, that what we are looking at is a range of ways in which i believe we can find the assurances for members of this house. the task is to find sufficient reassurance that gives the confidence to members of this house that the backstop will not be indefinite. successful renegotiations require trust and credibility. given the prime minister's breathtaking u—turn today, i would minister's breathtaking u—turn today, iwould put minister's breathtaking u—turn today, i would put it to work she has lost the trust and credibility of the house, of the country and of the european union.” of the house, of the country and of the european union. i have to say to my honourable friend, no, what was very clear in my discussions with european leaders is that we will be able to have discussions with them, myself and the uk government, on this issue. the prime minister told mps to be honest about the options

we face. but she has never spelt out to her backbenchers or the public that any type of brexit deal has always been a choice between damaging our economy and having a ha rd damaging our economy and having a hard border in northern ireland or ending up as a rule taker. isn't it this failure that has led to this crisis and she only has herself to blame? no, i say to the honourable lady, we have been clear about the need for what we believe is right for the united kingdom which is to negotiate a bespoke deal, which is not that the norway eea option, at one end of the spectrum offered by the eu in the first place, or the canada the eu in the first place, or the ca na da style the eu in the first place, or the canada style deal for great britain with northern ireland carved out in a separate customs territory which is at the other end of the spectrum they proposed. the political declaration does indeed include a trade agreement with a free—trade area at its heart, no tariffs, no

quantitative restrictions and with ambitious proposals in relations to the customs border. the promised will be well aware that the backstop was one of a number of very grave concerns backbenchers have about the d raft concerns backbenchers have about the draft withdrawal agreement so can she assure the house she will seek to reduce for example the role of the european court ofjustice and change the text of the withdrawal agreement? i hope i can give some further reassurance to my right honourable friend because in discussions with a number of collea g u es discussions with a number of colleagues there seems to be a misunderstanding about the role of the european court ofjustice. what we will have in our future relationship is we will end the jurisdiction of the european court ofjustice. the jurisdiction of the european court of justice. the ecj jurisdiction of the european court ofjustice. the ecj will not be the final arbiter of the withdrawal agreement, i think there has been some misunderstanding of the reference in the withdrawal agreement to the point that the arbitration panel that is dealing with disputes will be able to ask the european court ofjustice for its opinion on its interpretation of

eu law but the dispute will be determined by the arbitration panel and not by the european court of justice. the prime minister may not know but i have been in this house nearly 40 years and if i had made my speech later today i would have told that my duty, my sacred duty as a memberof parliament, is that my duty, my sacred duty as a member of parliament, is to come here and look after the health and welfare and future prosperity of my constituents, overriding everything else. i have been sympathetic to the situation she finds herself in but i have lost that sympathy because what i understand now from today's decision is that she is actually been captured by the hard right, the far right brexit win over a party to the so—called european research group that does not believe in research. she is a captive of this unplanned —— unpleasant, nationalist, populist group in the conservative party. no, the concern

about the potential indefinite nature of the backstop is one that has been expressed by a wide range of members of parliament including some on the opposition benches.” very much hope for the sake of this country that the prime minister will prevail in the difficult negotiation that lie ahead but i hope that, as she enters those negotiations, she will be sustained by the widespread admiration notjust will be sustained by the widespread admiration not just on will be sustained by the widespread admiration notjust on these benches, notjust admiration notjust on these benches, not just amongst conservatives but in the country as a whole for the dignity and the perseverance she has shown.” a whole for the dignity and the perseverance she has shown. i think my best answer to my right honourable friend is to say thank you. thank you, mr speaker. i want to ask the prime minister if she thinks

that going back and changing minutia about the backstop is actually going to make any difference to the kind of people on her side who would like to go around calling themselves aslan and circling around her head, kevin nothing about this country but only about their own position? this backstop rejig is going to make absolutely no difference to those people. —— caring nothing. and they know it. so what is the plan then?” would say to the honourable lady, theissue would say to the honourable lady, the issue of the potential, what people are concerned about is a potential indefinite nature of the backstop, there is no intention for that to be indefinite, there is no intention for it to be used in the first place. that is a genuine concern that is held by people across this house and i think

entirely right that the government addresses it. thank you, mr speaker pulse of the prime minister rightly talks about listening to young people and first—time voters. would she accept that they voted overwhelmingly to remain and they look at what is happening in this house and they see that this deal is brexit, warts and all, this is as good as it gets. is it not time now that we know what brexit actually looks like, as opposed to some fantasy version of brexit, that those people get the chance to actually vote on brexit reality rather than brexit fantasy? i think my honourable friend has heard my response in relation to a people's vote, a second referendum before. i genuinely believe that we should recognise that the referendum in 2016 was the biggest exercise in democracy in our history and we should respect those many people who

went out to vote, including many who had not voted before, and i believe that if we go back to people and say, have another think and think again, they will question the value of that democracy and the value of the vote. this is a political challenge for the prime minister, not a substantive one and it seems that the prime minister's strategy is now to try to placate further the arg wing of her own party but isn't the truth that they are insatiable —— erg wing. they will never be satisfied. given that the parliamentary maths of this are so difficult to really break this deadlock, i believe it requires different parliamentary maths and a general election. can i say to the honourable lady that i think what this country requires is for us to

continue to work to get a good deal over the line so we can deliver on brexit, deliver it in a way that honours the referendum, protectjobs and livelihoods across this country. further uncertainty and division in the country will do nothing to help people who are looking to their futures. it is essential to any successful negotiator is the ability to walk away. the backstop takes that from us. how can she change that? can i say to my right honourable friend that we are continuing firstly on the no—deal preparations and the cabinet will be meeting to discuss those further. secondly, that in any circumstance, we need to ensure there is no hard border between northern ireland and ireland. it is finding the ways we can do that in a way that does indeed enable us to be free in a future relationship which is the best possible deal for this country

that we are looking for and striving to achieve. the promise of talk about faith in democracy but i think a lot of people whether they voted to leave or remain, looking at this shambles today will see a prime minister who has tried to keep economic advice from this house and the public, legal advice from this house and the public and a government that has been found in contempt. she is trying to prevent us having a vote on her own deal and one whether we should be able to have a vote on the deal or not. people will look at this aghast. i have spoken to many labour voters, i deeply respect and understand the reasons they voted to leave but many of them have changed their minds. they are looking at this and saying to me that they want a chance to have a say on what is before them, the brexit reality are not brexit fantasy and that is why we need a people's vote.” not brexit fantasy and that is why we need a people's vote. i would say to the honourable gentleman that he is wrong because we did provide

economic analysis for this house, we published it and the illegal position in relation to the withdrawal agreement and the political declaration, that has been available to members of this house. he talks about the vote as if there is no vote in the future. of course, we are deferring the vote while we have these further discussions with the eu. the prime minister cannot have failed to notice that there are ple nty of failed to notice that there are plenty of challenges, legal challenges, surrounding brexit whether or not it was the fact that the referendum was a legally binding, whether we could take article 50 of the table. my concern is that any reassurances or assurances given will only be subject to legal challenges down the road if they are not legally binding therefore assurances and reassurances will not make a difference to how i feel about the flaws in this. can i say to the honourable lady that i entirely recognise the point that she is making about legal position in

relation to any assurances that are achieved. obviously we are at the beginning of the discussions with the european union on this matter but what i want to ensure is that members like my honourable friend are able to have the confidence in those assurances when they come back from the european union. there is no one currently in the house who has been prime minister. does she appreciate that other prime ministers under pressure did not delay their legislation? margaret thatcher did not delay after poll tax. tony blair did not delay the iraq war decision. john major did not delay maastricht. prime minister, she knows that when the politics of this place is broken,

you either resign, you go back to the people in a general election or a referendum. no one gets to play for extra time before the game is over. can i say to the right honourable gentleman that the whole premise of his question i think was wrong and i think if he looks back in the history of governments in this country he will see that. the prime minister in her statement said that the government will step up said that the government will step up its work in preparation for a possible no—deal outcome. this is very important. she said the same la st very important. she said the same last month sol very important. she said the same last month so i am wondering if my right honourable friend can tell us at least one action that is now taking place that was not taking place last month? yes, i'm very happy to say to my right honourable friend that we have been db state pink —— stepping up the action taken and since! pink —— stepping up the action taken and since i said that, hmrc has

taken action in writing out to over 140,000 businesses and indeed the department for health and social has written out to pharmaceutical companies, for example, on the potential impact of no—deal on medicines and devices. the prime minister has come to the house to talk to us about honesty on the date when she is trying to pull a vote which she said would not be pulled in orderto which she said would not be pulled in order to try to change a deal she said could not be changed. isn't it time to be honest about the commitments this country has made to no hard border, to be good friday agreement, and to not doing huge damage to our economy, and the fact that any deal, any deal, she can talk to the european union about the backstop all day, but any deal that respect those commitments will require us to sign up to a set of common european rules over which we will no longer have any say by dint of the fact brexit? isn't it time to

be honest both with her backbenchers and with the public about this instead of trying to square square rebel circles or, even worse, hide the fact of this fundamental choice until after we are out? we are committed to no hard border between northern ireland and ireland, we are committed to the belfast good friday agreement, we are committed to a deal which actually delay the —— delivers on the protection of peoples jobs and livelihoods, delivers on the protection of peoplesjobs and livelihoods, that is the deal we have negotiated. the right honourable gentleman refers to theissue right honourable gentleman refers to the issue of how one can operate on a trading basis with the european union in relation to rules that the european union set and of course what the government set out was a proposal and this is reflected in the balance identified in the political declaration but if you wa nt to political declaration but if you want to restrict or reduce or remove customs checks that it is necessary to make commitments in relation to the obligations you are willing to sign up to. what we proposed in the proposal the government put forward

in the summer was to do just that but to ensure that parliament had a lock on those votes but of course there would be a consequence and we we re there would be a consequence and we were honest there would be one if parliament chose not to accept those rules. that is being open with people about the consequences of their decisions. the prime minister has not yet confirmed when the meaningful vote will actually be held. my understanding from the house of commons library is now the government has made a statement, that the political agreement on the withdrawal agreement and future framework has been reached that the requirements now are public and to make a statement to the house by the 21st of january make a statement to the house by the 21st ofjanuary on no—deal has been superseded because of her statement being made today. in their view, superseded because of her statement being made today. in theirview, in practice the latest date we could have a meaningful vote would be the 28th of march. can i ask her if this is what she intends and get some

assurances that the delay she is talking about is a matter of days and not weeks and months? can i say to my right honourable friend that i do not believe the scenario she has set out is the correct one. the 21st of january date has been set in legislation, there is a vote which referred to that earlier which took place last week. we are conscious of the requirement that that places on the requirement that that places on the government but i believe it is right that we should be recognising concerns that have been expressed in this house and attempting to find a way through those concerns and resolve them. mr speaker, could the promise to confirm reports that £100,000 has been shelled out by the government on facebook ads in the last week, promoting the prime minister's deal, but even she is not now happy with? isn't this now an even bigger farce

that the uncertainty around the uk business activity trade arrangement and other issues, but she seeks to sideline parliament once again, make social media companies richer while the country pays the price?” social media companies richer while the country pays the price? i say to the country pays the price? i say to the honourable lady, no. what we have done is recognise that there is a specific aspect of the deal which is raising concerns here in this house. we will seek reassurances in relation to that specific aspect of the deal. i continue to believe that, overall, this deal is the right dealfor the that, overall, this deal is the right deal for the united that, overall, this deal is the right dealfor the united kingdom. the prime minister has been consistent since she assumed the premiership that a bad deal would be

worse than no—deal and we have had the time since june 2016 to do the preparations for us leaving on wto terms. yet front bench ministers consistently referred to the eventuality of leaving without her deal as chaos possible are our preparations really so woeful? can i say to my right honourable friend that we have indeed been making those preparations and we continue to make those preparations and as i indicated earlier, have been stepping up those preparations put in relation to the impact of no deal, can i say to my honourable friend that it is notjust a question of what we do in the united kingdom. what happens at the border depends on others as well as what preparations we make in the uk and we cannot determine what action others will take so there will be a consequence of leaping with no deal, particularly if that is going out on a sense of ill will between us and the eu with no decisions that have helped to mitigate that impact —— look regret leaving with no deal. it is not just about what we do here but about what others do as well. if the only thing the prime minister

has heard is that a few tweets to the backstop arrangement will do the trick, isn't it obvious that once again she isjust not listening hard enough? —— a few tweaks. again she isjust not listening hard enough? -- a few tweaks. as i have said earlier, i recognise that the issue that has been raised about the backstop is a genuine concern for many members across the house and thatis many members across the house and that is why i believe it is right we address it. on friday, the treasury confirmed to me that this house has approved £4.2 billion worth of planning for a no withdrawal agreement and that, in terms, stability in a no—deal scenario partly depends on the eu taking a similar nondisruptive approach to planning. with the economic prosperity of one of its members, the republic of ireland, very closely engaged and with £39 billion at stake and interests of all the eu businesses that sell twice as much

to us as we sell to them, why on earth would they not be planning with us a nondisruptive move to the certainty of world trade organisation terms and the certainty of control over our economy and our ability to make future trade arrangements? my honourable friend asks why on earth they wouldn't. the fa ct asks why on earth they wouldn't. the fact is that the european union has been making some of its own preparations for no deal, it has sent certain notices out in relation to certain matters. but it has not been engaging with us on the aspect of determining or mitigating the impact of no deal on both sides of the border. i ask this on behalf of the border. i ask this on behalf of the many livingston constituents who have been in touch and i'm sure many across the uk. what the heck is going on? this is a complete and

utter mess. what is she more concerned with her own self—preservation and concerned with her own self— preservation and narrow concerned with her own self—preservation and narrow party unity than their lives and livelihoods of my constituents? how dare she postpone this boatjust because she was going to lose? downing street and her team have spent the last few days saying the vote was happening. how can anybody in this house or anybody in the countries of the united kingdom ever trust a single word that she or her government speaks ever again?” would say to the honourable lady, i will tell her what is going on. what is going on is that this government is going on is that this government is working to ensure that we can get over the line through this parliament a deal that is good for the whole of the united kingdom. going back to what you said at the beginning of the statement, we had a very detailed business of the house motion passed. it even specified how many hours and on what days and when the vote would be. ministers were

sent out all over the country relating to that debate, over 100 mps have spoken already, 140 wanted to speak today. it may well be that the prime minister is right, that this house would like to put off the vote but it needs to be this house that decides that. and, prime minister, i don't think so far you have answered the question whether the procedure to be used is a motion of adjourning the house, in which case this house would have a vote, whether it willjust be my one anonymous whip saying tomorrow?” would say to my right honourable friend that i believe it is important for the government to be listening to the comments that have come to us in relation to this specific issue and to be responding to those comments. if we want to ensure that we get a deal over the

line that is good for the british people, and i believe that is absolutely the responsible approach for this government to take. the prime minister was margaret negotiating strategy seems to be failagain, fail negotiating strategy seems to be fail again, fail better, negotiating strategy seems to be failagain, fail better, and it is not going to revive her zombie brexit deal, whenever she decides to bring it back to this house, christmas eve, christmas day, boxing day, it will be voted down. she talks of the will of the people but the will of the people cannot be undermined bya the will of the people cannot be undermined by a vote of the people. is that now what she must do? wrote the honourable lady has heard my response to the question of a further vote, a second referendum. cani further vote, a second referendum. can ijust further vote, a second referendum. can i just gently further vote, a second referendum. can ijust gently remind members of the opposition that every one of them stood on a manifesto commitment to deliver on the referendum. the

problem with the deal goes far beyond the backstop. may i ask my right honourable friend what she intends to do about the fact that the government's own analysis shows that every region of the country will be left poorer and we are going to end up with less say over the rules governing huge swathes of our economy than we have at the moment? i would say to my honourable friend that what the government's economic analysis shows is that in delivering on the referendum, none of the proposals, this deal does not make us poorer than we are today. what it does... what the economic analysis shows is that if you want to honour the referendum then the best deal for doing that and delivering for jobs and the economy is this deal.

studio: full coverage of the prime minister's statement will continue on bbc parliament and we will be back there shortly hit on the bbc news channel when we have brought you all of the latest developments on another turbulent day in this brexit process at westminster. having taken more time than in recent days went to the commons to admi having taken more time than int that there was widespread disquiet with parts of her plan, especially on the question of the backstop guarantee for the irish border. if we went ahead and held the vote tomorrow, the deal would be rejected by a significant margin. we will, therefore, defer the vote schedule for tomorrow and not proceed to divide the house at this time. the government is in disarray. uncertainty is building, for business. people are in despair at the state of these failed negotiations,

and concerned about what it means about theirjobs, livelihood and communities.