hello, you're watching afternoon live live from westminster. i'm simon mccoy. today at 2:00pm. reporter: can you win, prime minister? theresa may says the only way to avoid a no—deal brexit is to vote for her deal, but angry opponents tell her she's wasting her time. the prime minister has been recklessly wasting time, holding the country to ransom with a threat of no deal in a desperate attempt to blackmail mps to vote for her hopelessly unpopular deal. the right honourable gentleman can say what he likes about no deal, but he opposes any deal that the government has negotiated with the european union. he opposes the deal... he opposes the deal that the eu say is the only deal. and that leaves him with no deal. and in the past hour, there have been tense exchanges between conservative mps and the speaker, over his handling of the debate. police are treating the fatal stabbing of a 14—year—old boy

who was knocked off a moped in east london as a targeted attack — he's been named locally as jayden moody. a ban on nuisance calls about pensions starts today — to help tackle fraudsters trying to trick people out of their savings. look at me. look at me! how dare you! close your eyes. and the favourite‘s the favourite — the comedy starring olivia coleman scoops up a whopping 12 nominations for this year's bafta awards. coming up on afternoon live all the sport with olly foster. we will be looking ahead to tonight's league cup semifinal. a seemingly impossible job for burton albion against manchester city. and totte n ha m albion against manchester city. and tottenham still can't move into their new stadium. and darren bett has all the weather. a frosty start from any but a touch of sunshine gci’oss from any but a touch of sunshine across many places. back to square one by the end of the week. all the

details later on. hello, everyone. this is afternoon live. i'm simon mccoy in westminster. theresa may has begun a fresh push to convince mps to back her brexit deal, as they begin five days of debate here at westminster. she cancelled a vote on her plans last month, after admitting she was likely to face a heavy defeat. at prime minister's questions opposition parties accused theresa may of having nothing new to offer. in the words ofjeremy corbyn "not one single dot or comma has changed". the prime minister is hoping new proposals on northern ireland will be enough to persuade mps to change their mind. but the dup have already said they're not enough, and now she faces another hurdle, with some of her own backbenchers, effectively trying to force her to act within days if she loses the vote next week. our political correspondent

ben wright reports. can you win over parliament, prime minister? the prime minister ducked defeat by pulling the big vote. parliament will now restart the debate on her brexit deal with no sign opposition to it has softened. but her cabinet is trying to sound confident. i'm looking forward to it. i think the prime minister's deal is a good deal. the only alternatives are no brexit which would not deliver on what the british people voted for, or no deal which would cause economic damage. it's because this deal delivers for britain and i'm confident it will pass. but the numbers in the commons currently stacked against the deal. i hope colleagues prevaricating will think carefully about the alternatives. but it's a very late appeal for help. remember, the government has no majority in the commons. dozens of pro leave and pro remain conservative mps look almost certain to fight with opposition parties next week to defeat the prime minister's deal. i have looked carefully at this deal. i think this is a humiliating deal and i will not be able to support it as it stands.

the government says it will provide mps with fresh reassurances over the coming days, particularly on the so—called backstop for northern ireland. the stormont assembly that's currently suspended, could have a veto over any new eu regulations after brexit, an idea already rubbished by dup. in the commons this lunchtimejeremy corbyn accused the prime minister of recklessly wasting time to blackmail mps. the prime minister has spent the last week begging for warm words from eu leaders and achieved nothing. not one single dot or comma has changed. if her deal is defeated, will the prime minister did the right thing and call a general election? no, said theresa may, who again refused to rule out a no—deal brexit. with an opposition front bench that is opposed to any deal that the government negotiates with the european union, it's even more important that we prepare for no deal.

the deal protects jobs and security and delivers on the referendum and he should back it. there is now an almighty struggle under way between the government and parliament. yesterday, 20 tory backbenchers joined forces with labour to show their opposition to a no—deal brexit. today, a cross—party group of mps are backing a move that would force the prime minister to put forward a new plan in front of parliament within three days. if she loses her big vote next week. it's the start, i think, of an essential dialogue between government and parliament to try to find a way out of the difficulties we are facing. clearly, it only comes in if the government loses its motion next week, but it looks to me as if the government is going to have considerable difficulty. the government hopes the prospect of a no—deal brexit will focus minds, but if the deal is defeated a no—confidence vote, an election, another referendum could all come into play. ben wright, bbc news, westminster.

the decision by the speaker john bercow to allow that vote on dominic grieve's ammendment, caused quite a stir in the commons once pmqs was finished. here's what the pro—brexit conservative mp, peter bone put to the speaker. late last night i went in to the table office to look at the business of house number two motions to see what shenanigans the government was up what shenanigans the government was up to. and it has been published. and i thought of making and proposing an amendment to that. but i was told that would be totally out of order and that there were no other amendments filed. but down the order paper there is an amendment to that. and that puts me in, i think, somewhat of an unfortunate position ofa somewhat of an unfortunate position of a stop i wonder if you could rule on what action might be taken. that was the conservative mp peter bone — well let's have a listen to what the speaker, john bercow, said in response. this is the first i've learned of the matter. and that makes it difficult for me to give immediate

advice. it's a matter upon which i might need to reflect before giving him what i would call substantive advice. obviously i was not aware of the honourable gentleman's visit to the honourable gentleman's visit to the table office of which he has now informed me. i understand he is telling me that he was advised that the motion was not amendable. and i don't know whether he went into the table office before the right honourable and learned gentleman, the member for beaconsfield, or after. all i know is that in my understanding the motion is amendable. order, order. order. in my understanding the motion is amendable. i my understanding the motion is amendable. lam my understanding the motion is amendable. i am clear in my mind about that. so insofar as the honourable gentleman is disappointed that he wasn't able to table an amendment, iunderstand that he wasn't able to table an amendment, i understand that. whether there is an opportunity for him to do that now seems doubtful, but i have no objection... i would

have had no objection to him seeking to table an amendment, but i wasn't aware he was attempting to do so. that is my honest answer to him. i absolutely accept he is a person of complete integrity and will always try to do the right thing. and the same goes for me. i try to do the right thing. and the same goes for me. lam try to do the right thing. and the same goes for me. i am trying to do the right thing to make the right judgment. that is what i have tried to do, and i will go on doing. concerns about the speaker's decision to allow that vote on dominic grieve's amendment were also raised by andrea leadsom, leader of the house. there are members around the house who have concerns about your decision today. i think it would be very helpful to the house if you can confirm that your decision was taken in the full advice and agreement of the clerk of the house of commons and perhaps to help the house you might agree to publish the advice so that the house can understand the reason for your decision. our chief political correspondent vicki young is in parliament for us now. it looks like they have just gone

out to vote on this amendment. they have. this is the dominic grieve amendment, the one we heard him talking about in ben wright's piece. this would mean that next tuesday, if the government loses on theresa may's deal, if it is voted down, then instead of having 21 days to come back to put something else before parliament, the government would only have three days to do that. so pretty significant stuff. that is why there has been a huge i’ow that is why there has been a huge row about the speaker's decision to allow the folk to take place at all. many tories are furious, they say it brea ks many tories are furious, they say it breaks with all precedent. iain duncan smith, someone who has over his career being a rebel against his own party on the issue of europe. 20 yea rs own party on the issue of europe. 20 years ago he tried a lot of time to do this kind of thing, change what is called a business motion. he was a lwa ys is called a business motion. he was always told it was not possible, not allowed to happen. that rule seems

to have changed today and john bercow feels his job to have changed today and john bercow feels hisjob is to have changed today and john bercow feels his job is to give house of commons mps from all sides, including those who do not always agree with their own government, the chance to express what they feel about things. that is exactly what is going on now. i am told by conservative mps that there are pretty frantic discussions going on down the corridorfrom pretty frantic discussions going on down the corridor from me with the government is trying to get some kind of compromise to stop a defeat on all of this. i am also told that those conservatives who backed the dominic grieve amendment, they are not quite as confident of getting this through as they were last night when the government was defeated. there was some anxiety, i think, among some conservatives that the speaker may have gone too far, that he has changed the rules and they are not sure they want to defeat the government on this. it will be about 15 minutes before we get that result. clearly quite a big moment. the other thing that happened after prime minister's questions a

briefing for journalists from theresa may, making the point that they are very much focused on trying to win the vote next tuesday but they say if that wasn't going to happen it was never the case where they would wait 21 days before coming back and telling parliament what would happen next. they would wa nt to what would happen next. they would want to give some kind of certainty pretty quickly. that suggests that they would come back anyway pretty quickly to suggest what might happen. because as you know, we are getting close to exit day. the government would know in the turmoil there might be if the deal was defeated next tuesday, they have to do something to try to show they do have a plan b. at the point of this amendment, if it goes through, giving the prime ministerjust three days to come up with, i don't know, a plan b, whatever you call it, it means she wouldn't be able to go back to the eu, come and have a vote, and then go back to the eu and there maybe have a third vote. it

would stop that scenario. it could. there is some uncertainty on what it could mean. but it certainly means she cannot wait 21 days. it shrinks that timetable, makes it much more quicker. the reason some tory mps wa nt to quicker. the reason some tory mps want to back it is they think it would be ridiculous to wait 21 days and then another seven before you can get to a photo situation. it would be ridiculous to sit around and wait for all that to happen. so this is clearly not the way the government wants to proceed. the broader point is the government, as the government, wants to be in control of the procedure. they want to be able to dictate the terms. what is happening here, parliament, as they have done all the way through this, is trying to take control of it, and trying to make sure they get a say at all times about what happens next. because the fear of many labour mps and some conservative mps is that theresa may could just run down the clock, wait 21 days, come back and then try again and you are getting closer and

closer to the deadline and closer to leaving without any deal at all. and there are many mps who are not prepared to allow that to happen. this does of course look like parliamentary shenanigans but it is important because it's about mps trying to get a say in what happens next, not just allowing trying to get a say in what happens next, notjust allowing the government to say what it wants to do. this focus on the speaker. he is a controversialfigure. is it also fairto a controversialfigure. is it also fair to say that he is a remainer and that is carrying what he is saying. he would obviously deny that. he says he is impartial and what he wants to do is make sure mps and the house of commons has a say. if you look at his track record, i would say even his critics would argue that what he has done since he became a speaker is to allow a lot more questioning of the government, of the executive. he allows mps to bring emergency debates. this is the

kind of thing thatjust didn't happen years ago. on a day when they could be a huge important story happening and being reported everywhere, mps would not discuss it. that doesn't happen now because he has allowed questions to be asked of ministers. he has assured ministers must come to the house of commons to answer questions and they are held much more to account by mps. he says that is his role as a speaker. he is not there on the government's behalf. he is there on behalf of the house of commons, which is a very different thing. he has said clearly that he doesn't just want mps who agree with their own side to have a say, it is for those who dissent to have a say as well and that is uncomfortable for any government. the question is, and some tory mps would say that he is not impartial because he has a view. they feel labour mps have kept him in hisjob because they they feel labour mps have kept him in his job because they feel he would be helpful in trying to thwart brexit. the other interesting thing that happened, john boco pointed out

that happened, john boco pointed out that previously when he has gone against precedent when it comes to house of commons rules, it was to allow the house of commons to talk about holding a referendum on leaving the eu. ——john bercow pointed out. so that is further proof that he would give for him allowing mps to have a say. people are now coming back into the commons chamber. do i have a reality check in chris morris or do we stay with you? you are fine to go away for a couple of minutes. we will come back to you. thank you to vicki young. we will keep an eye on movement in the house of commons for that vote. well, the main sticking point when it comes to the deal is still the irish backstop —— the contingency arrangement which will prevent a hard border on the island of ireland. the government says it is ready to offer more reassurances but as our ireland correspondent chris page explains they're not likely to wash with the dup. it still all about the border and the backstop. this morning the prime

minister published what she described as assurances proposals she hoped would win over the democratic unionists, the party at the parliamentary pivot point, but the parliamentary pivot point, but the dup dashed those hopes pretty quickly. in essence what the government was saying was that if the backstop kicks in then the stormont assembly would have to agree to any changes to eu trade rules that would govern how the backstop would work. one major problem, the stormont assembly basically doesn't exist at the moment will stop it is two years to the day that the late martin mcguinness resigned as deputy first minister, in effect bringing to an end the power—sharing government his party sinn fein had been in with the dup. disagreements between those parties have rumbled on. they do not agree on very much but they do agree these new government proposals are not acceptable, but for different reasons. the dup say they do not go far enough, not legally binding and do not provide assurances enough. sinn fein, if you like, almost take the opposite argument to arrive at

the opposite argument to arrive at the same conclusion, saying the proposals would give the dup a veto over the backstop and a backstop that can be vetoed is not a backstop at all. as regards the bottom line on these government proposals, in orderfor it to on these government proposals, in order for it to be on these government proposals, in orderfor it to be in place at on these government proposals, in order for it to be in place at all the stormont assembly would have to be restored and the general view here is that the current situation and impasse over brexit makes any restoration over devolution even more unlikely. chris page in stormont. so as mps begin another five days of debate, what will they be weighing up — and what is at stake? our reality check correspondent, chris morris, has this assessment. so, in downing street, they're trying to figure out the numbers in the house of commons, to work out whether they have any hope of getting this vote passed. but don't forget, amidst all the political drama, it's the documents that have been negotiated behind closed doors that are at the heart of the debate. so, we've come into the cabinet room for a reminder of what mps are talking about, and eventually voting on, with the credibility of the prime minister and her brexit plan very much at stake. first of all, the withdrawal

agreement itself. this is the legally binding document that would take the uk out of the eu. it includes the financial settlement, or divorce bill, that the uk will pay — an estimated £39 billion. it also sets out basic rights for uk citizens elsewhere in the eu and eu citizens here in the uk and the terms of a transition period, of at least 21 months, after brexit, when all the rules would stay the same. but most controversial of all, there's the protocol on ireland and northern ireland, including the backstop plan for keeping the irish border as open as it is now under all circumstances. now, the backstop would only come into effect at the end of a post—brexit transition period if a future trade agreement to avoid a hard border hasn't been achieved. the prime minister has been given additional reassurances from the eu that the backstop would only ever be temporary and that no—one actually wants it to come into effect. but it still exists in the treaty

and there is no unilateral way for the uk to get out of it without the eu's agreement. there is also a non—binding political declaration on the future relationship between the uk and the eu. and the wording here is so vague that it doesn't offer any guarantee of any particular outcome. so, the government's facing an uphill battle to get this vote passed, and it will probably have to ask mps to vote more than once, maybe after getting even more reassurance from brussels. and after that, well, if the vote goes through, the withdrawal agreement then needs to be turned into uk law through new legislation. it also needs to be given the green light by the european parliament. and if all that happens in time, the uk will leave the eu on 29th march. but if the government is defeated, well, the default position is that the uk would still leave, but with no deal. or mps could try to come up with an alternative plan for leaving, a relationship more like norway's, for example, which is still in the single market.

or we might be looking at a new prime minister, a new election, or even another referendum — which could mean no brexit at all. the truth is, no—one can say for sure what is likely to happen over the next three months. this street has seen its fair share of drama in the past. but nothing quite like this. that was chris morris from reality check. i'm joined by thejoe marshall from the institute of government. the amendment vote we are now waiting for, why the trouble with the speaker and why is he seemingly making people angry? what we are seeing this afternoon is the speaker representing a tussle going on between parliament and government, trying to control when parliament debates brexit, and what it does if the government deal does not get through. what the speaker has done this afternoon is bend parliamentary rules to allow mps to have another say on the government's deal of what

it wants to do next, earlier than they would have done otherwise. to show what is happening in the house of commons. we are awaiting that vote. doesn't look very far away. when you say that the rules are bent, can they be bent to that degree because clearly some people are angry. parliamentary rules are incredibly complicated and old. the speaker has a lot of discussion in negotiating and interpreting them. it is open to the speaker to choose whether or not to allow an amendment toa whether or not to allow an amendment to a motion. this kind of motion that outlines how parliament will debate the government's deal is normally not amendable and that is why it is so controversial. as we await this vote, if this amendment is voted through, what we are looking at is more pressure on theresa may. if she loses the vote next tuesday, to produce another plan. definitely. what it does is narrow the time the prime minister

has to come back to parliament to say what they plan to do next. there would have been 21 days and then an additional seven days to vote and now it will only be three days if this vote goes through. can parliament stop a no—deal brexit? ultimately parliament on its own cannot stop no deal. it's a default in international and uk law. what parliament can do is try to put as much pressure on government itself to try to stop no deal, either by revoking or extending article 50, or sending back any deal the government brings forward. if the ayes have it, it means the amendment has won. and that means theresa may faces more pressure in terms of time. it means she has another timeframe to come back to parliament. realistically she might have come back earlier than she had to but this will put more pressure on her and she would not have much time to work out what to do next. if it goes ahead on the

basis they vote against the amendment and we have five days of debate whatever happens, there is a sense of deja vu because we have been here before, getting through three days last time. the government still has the old amendments that we re still has the old amendments that were tabled before christmas, they are still there. new amendments might be tabled and all mps can have another say at taking part in the debate. we show this image a lot. explain to me what is happening here and what we are waiting to see. what we are witnessing now is whether or not mps have accepted the dominic grieve amendment to the business motion. what this would do is narrow the timeframe and say government has to come back to parliament earlier. we are waiting for the teller to come back to say how mps voted to stop what can you say how it is going to go? i would not put my fortune telling skills on the line. but everyone is watching with bated

breath. the political implications of this are probably stronger than the practical ones. explain the default position, as far as theresa may is concerned, it is that we are out on the of march unless not even if they vote for her deal, but even if they vote for her deal, but even if they vote for her deal, but even if they don't we are out, and that is the default. the default position not just for theresa may is the default. the default position notjust for theresa may but in domestic and international law, the default position. parliament simply saying it doesn't want no deal on its own does not change anything to stop parliament has to actively vote for something else. for those saying they want to push article 50, on the basis they want a further referendum, how is that done through parliament to? extending article 50 is not something the uk government can do on its own. it has to ask the eu and the eu have to agree to it. each member has to agree. yes, all other 27 member states. to do that

we would then need to change domestic law, which would switch us to no deal mode on march 29 if nothing else changes so parliament would have to amend the domestic law to do that. to revoke article 50, the uk can do that unilaterally, not needing the eu to agree, but domestic law is set up for no deal on march 29 so we need parliament effectively to come in and make sure domestic law is ready for avoiding a no deal scenario. thank you for joining us. we can go back to vicki young who is monitoring this from just outside the chamber. we are not far away. we have been not far off for a while. it has been slightly delayed. i can see the chief whip julian smith going along the front bench. and here come the tellers. you are asking if you know in advance, the only way you do know is if you know which side the tellers are on because the one who have won a lwa ys are on because the one who have won always stand to the right of that

table as they walk up. they are jostling for position so i cannot tell. it looks like ali mcgovern for labour. looks like a government defeat to me but we will hear what the result is. the aye to the right 308, the noes to the left, 297. thank you. the ayes to the right, 308. the noes to the left, 297. so the ayes smack —— the ayes have it. the ayes have it. another government

defeat, 308—297. an even greater defeat, 308—297. an even greater defeat than last night. it means the prime minister would have to come back within three sitting days to the house of commons with proposals for the next steps if her deal is rejected next tuesday when we have that meaningful vote. i think what this tells us is that parliament has decided it wants to take control of the situation as much as it can. we saw that a little bit last night with those who are very opposed to a no deal situation trying to show that they can control events up to a point. this is very similar to all of that, trying to say, there is no way that if the government is defeated next tuesday on its biggest policy agenda, that it can then go away for 21 days and not do anything. so they are trying to force the prime minister's hand, partly because they do not want her to run the clock down to stop brexit secretary stephen barclay is on his feet. we continue to believe this is

the best deal to honour the referendum result and deliver the certainty for businesses, citizens and our security. it was clear that there was much that members agreed with. but we listened to the views of the house, which in particular expressed concerns in relation to the backstop. we therefore pause the debate to enable those concerns to be discussed with eu leaders. i will give way. i thank the secretary of state for giving way. in the intervening month since the meaningful vote was delayed until this debate now, not much has changed. on monday i asked the secretary of state whether or not he had brought forward any plan b contingency work. he ignored that question. i wonder in the light of the motion and amendment that has just passed, it is rather more contingent on the government to have a plan b and rather urgently. can he explain to us what work is going on?

we have a very good early illustration in this debate of the attitude of the snp. because even before we got into the statement setting out what measures have been taken since the pause in that debate, they have already decided that they have reached their conclusion as to what theirjudgment on those measures are. let me enlighten doctor but he has already had one go. let me enlighten him on some of the development that have happened since the pause in the debate. today we have published a document entitled the uk government commitments to northern ireland and its integral place in the united kingdom. it sets out the domestic reassurances we can provide. as the prime minister has said, these are one aspect of our strategy to reassure their house. another aspect doctor but i will take interventions ina doctor but i will take interventions in a moment. another aspect will be our commitment in a moment. another aspect will be ourcommitment in in a moment. another aspect will be our commitment in the next phase of negotiations to work any more

targeted and close away with parliament. and i will return to that later. i also want to reassure colleagues that whatever the outcome of this debate we will respond rapidly, recognising we must provide parliament with as much security as possible. on the order paper today, there is an amendment nine, which deals with the question, what further information the government might put before the house on ensuring that showed we need to use the backstop, this house could decide to leave alone, without europe deciding with us. alone, without europe deciding with us. i had a quick word with the attorney, because it involves him, there amendment, saying he should report to the house that should the government say they have new

arrangements where sovereignty is out in this house, about whether we should leave the backstop, he will report to the house. might the government therefore accept this amendment, please? that is an important point, what will the role of this house be in the event the backstop needs to be triggered? as he well knows, there are safeguards, which will meet against the need for a backstop. it is in the interests have a backstop, not least because it breaks the four freedoms eu has rigorously sought. i will come onto some of the safeguards that are applied, i will happily give way given his seniority but there safeguards. i thank him. given his seniority but there safeguards. ithank him. he given his seniority but there safeguards. i thank him. he says he was listening to his debate, which is why he paused it, and came back with answers on the backstop. but if he did listen to the debate, he would have known the concerns relating to importing, concerns

relating to importing, concerns relating to importing, concerns relating to manufacturing and security were mentioned as many times, if not more, than the backstop. what reassurances and changes has he delivered on those things? he is absolutely right that there are concerns, such as he is absolutely right that there are concerns, such as security. that is at the very essence of why we need the deal, in order to give the confidence on issues such as security and also to secure the implementation period, where measures such implementation period, where measures such as implementation period, where measures such as security would remain in place. if i could come onto the fact that is what is very clear in the debates we had before there were many views in the house is what trade deal we should enter into with the eu. i will come onto it in into with the eu. i will come onto itina into with the eu. i will come onto it in a moment but to make a little progress, the sort of trade deals including no deal, no deal plus, norway, norway plus, canada, canada a+, norway for now, no wait forever, a whole spectrum of deals that different members cling to. but the

reality is whatever deal needs to be put in place requires a winding down of our 45 year relationship with the european union and therefore whatever deal is put in place requires a withdrawal agreement and that withdrawal agreement requires a backstop. i will happily give way. that withdrawal agreement requires a backstop. i will happily give waylj thank the secretary of state for giving way. in terms of his comments with relation to working more closely with parliament, can i ask him to closely with parliament, can i ask hi m to reflect closely with parliament, can i ask him to reflect on the fact that this place is grossly out of touch with the public, in terms of the fundamental issue of whether we are members of the european or not? this houseis members of the european or not? this house is not representative of the people. the executive is a legitimate branch of government. can we be assured whatever workings happen in parliament, that the executive will not give up its responsibilities, which are to implement the will of the people? which is a much greater body of sovereignty than this place? i think what is fair to say is a range of views held in the house, which are held sincerely by members

of parliament, but as ijust alluded to, they cover a vast range of different deals. i think the point of substance my honourable friend as referring to is the clear majority of the house voted to give the public the decision on whether we stayed or left the european union and the majority of the house voted to trigger article 50. therefore, it is incumbent members of this house not just to say what they are against but also to be clear as what they are for. ifi they are for. if i can make a little progress and then i will happily take some interventions. for many, including on the bench is upset, the withdrawal agreement addresses many of the key issues they themselves have spoken of. for example, it protects citizens‘ rights, it protects citizens‘ rights, it protects a 3 million eu citizens of the uk and 1 million uk citizens in the uk and 1 million uk citizens in the eu. it also gives a financial settle m e nt the eu. it also gives a financial settlement that honours our legal obligations. not to do so, as members opposite have pointed out,

would undermine our international position. it guarantees an implementation period, which means businesses have one change to make as we enter into a new trade deal, as we enter into a new trade deal, as opposed to two. but most importantly, mr speaker, and this is an issue on which the benches upset quite rightly should take great pride because they played a key part, in terms of the peace situation in northern ireland. it is a very proud record for the benches opposite. the withdrawal agreement enables us to preserve that hard—won peace and ensure the commitments that were made in the belfast agreement were honoured. i will happily give way. does the secretary of state realise that the withdrawal agreement and especially the backstop arrangement, which actually forcibly would remove northern ireland from the rest of the united kingdom, laws in brussels rather than westminster and, northern ireland economy cut off from trade

deals which the united kingdom would enter into with the rest of the world, that has put in jeopardy the fine balance which there was in the belfast agreement? and it is not helped by the comments of the secretary of state to the cabinet yesterday that a refusal to vote for this withdrawal agreement is likely to lead to a referendum on a united ireland? i very much recognise the genuine concerns the right honourable gentleman has in terms of the backstop. i will come on in my statement to address some of those, although i readily concede i don‘t expect to address all of them, in terms of the areas of movement today. but i think also this is about assessing the balance of risk. the backstop doesn‘t cover the 80% of our economy, the services economy, there are actually outside. there are many in the business community of northern ireland who see huge benefits, in terms of the certainty that is offered through the withdrawal agreement. indeed,

certainty that is offered through the withdrawalagreement. indeed, it isn‘t our intention to enter into the backstop for the reason that many businesses in northern ireland will have access to both the eu and uk market, which is one of the attractions. it‘s actually one of the reasons why the sister party of the reasons why the sister party of the party opposite, both in the north of ireland and also in the south, the sister party of the party upset, actually supports the withdrawal agreement, not least as i was referring to, in terms of securing the... i will give way. i'm grateful to the state secretary for giving way. the scottish government has made known for quite some time a number of concerns it has with the agreement. since december, when they cancelled the debate to go away and listen, what has changed in it that can make the scottish government now support it? again, iwill support it? again, i will come onto that. i think as we move into the trade negotiation, the second phase of this, because this is a process. it is not a single event as we leave the european union, it‘s a process. we are dealing with the winding down

arrangements in this instance. i think there is a significant opportunity, recognising the fact that scotland voted differently, different votes within the united kingdom, and recognise that part of the engagement we are looking to put in place with parliament, that the prime minister referred to in her interview on andrew marr at the weekend, is about how we work with parliament in different ways, work ina parliament in different ways, work in a targeted way with the select committees in particular, to work in a closer way with the devolved administrations, because there are different interests. i think the trade negotiation phase allows us to explore that. if i can just alluded, i think show not tell is important. my i think show not tell is important. my very first meeting was to prioritise this role, meeting with his lead minister and also from the welsh government, in terms of discussing their concerns, so we can move from having regular meetings to making those more effective and more targeted, as to how we proceed.

ifi targeted, as to how we proceed. if i can make some progress. we know that there is no future trade agreements without an implementation period, without a withdrawal agreement and we can‘t have an implementation period without it. that indeed is the guarantee of citizen rights, the financial settle m e nt citizen rights, the financial settlement and the backstop. but let us settlement and the backstop. but let us look at the position of the opposition front bench. they reject this on the basis they can trigger a general election. then they can negotiate a new deal. negotiate a new deal that secured things that the eu have consistently ruled out, such as a third party having a say over their trade policy. he is going to secure this new deal and pass the legislation to enact that new deal and he is going to do all of that before the 29th of march. so we will have a general election, a new trade agreement, even though the eu themselves rule that out, even

though the eu say this is the only deal on offer. he will uniquely secure deal on offer. he will uniquely secure a deal on offer. he will uniquely secure a new deal. and he will pass their legislation to ratify that, all within the next 78 days. and yet, the sister party of the party opposite actually support the withdrawal agreement and do so not least to recognise one of the proudest achievements of the benches opposite, in terms of the peace process. i will happily give away. i agree with him with his points about the fantasy policies of the party opposite but i‘m afraid the government itself is indulging in fantasies. isn‘t it time that the government set out a realistic basis for this debate? as the former home secretary for the treasury said the other day, there is no chance of us concluding a trade deal with the eu by2020, concluding a trade deal with the eu by 2020, very little chance of doing so by 2020, very little chance of doing so by 2022. a far more realistic prospect as we might do so in the mid—20205. can we not conduct this debate on the basis of reality,

rather than continued fantasy? i pay rather than continued fantasy? i pay heed because i think my right honourable friend engages on these issues very seriously... of course, the former home secretary of the treasury as someone we the former home secretary of the treasury as someone we listened to intently. but what is different in this instance? a number of things. firstly, in terms of trade deals often a significant amount of time in trade deals is actually the first phase of understanding the regulatory positions at both sides. after 45 years of being part of the european union, actually that regulatory understanding is already there. secondly, there‘s a difference because often you would have six weeks‘ time lags in trade rows if you‘re flying back from canada or america, the geographical issues constitute a delay. clearly, geographically, our relationship with europe will allow us to inject much more pace into those trade rows and accelerate them. thirdly, the fact is we have a

political declaration that sets a framework for those trade discussions to take place. fourthly, also the issue of the incentives. i was going to come onto this. the incentives as to whether it is the security offered that the uk offers come in terms of our position on security, which is obviously of interest to many member states and europe, but also the fact that backstop is uncomfortable for the eu. on day one of the backstop, fishing rights and loss, which is why trump on might be keen on entering that. - fact it breaks entering that. the fact it breaks the four freedoms which have always been guarded by the eu. that‘s why there‘s an incentive for them to get momentum into those trade agreements. may i also take this opportunity to congratulate my right honourable friend on his recent honour? thank you. would he as a matter of good contingency planning

publish our schedule of tariffs for trading as an independent country and will they please have lower ta riffs and will they please have lower tariffs than the eu schedule and well they have zero tariffs for all imported manufacture components? my imported manufacture components? my honourable friend will know, because i know he has often spoken in warm and glowing terms, in terms of trading on a no deal basis on a wto basis. he will know tariffs is just one aspect of those relationships, particularly for the uk economy and our interest in services. issues such as data, data adequacy are much more significant to our economy. the political debate often focuses on tariffs, but often much more serious to us are issues such as data. and on a wto basis, which is what i know my right honourable friend advocates, wto doesn‘t address issues such as data, which is one of the reasons why wto is not the land of milk and honey that some pretend.

of course, the problems with the withdrawal agreement extend far beyond the backstop. he talks about services. the fact is, this withdrawal agreement is substantially not going to help services in this country, which is about 80% of our economy. he talks about 80% of our economy. he talks about certainty, at the end of the day, can he not agree, this political declaration is a declaration of aspiration? we have absolutely no idea where we will be at the end of those trade negotiations, which eu officials will have told him will take at least 3—4 years. the honourable gentleman hasn‘t been able to convince his own front bench. there are senior members of his own front bench who had spoken, such as the shadow business secretary, of the huge damage that there would be to democracy if we did what he is advocating, which is to end this uncertainty by calling a second referendum. iwould to end this uncertainty by calling a second referendum. i would that... indeed we have, cheers from the

benches opposite and yet their ma nifesto benches opposite and yet their manifesto on which they were elected was to honour the referendum, and yet they cheer going back on page 2a of the labour manifesto, on which he stood. does he agree with me there is a fundamental fallacy at the heart of the opposition position? on one hand, they say there are zero appetite on behalf of the european union to renegotiate the government‘s deal and yet they claim there is somehow a huge appetite to negotiate another deal, as yet unspecified? negotiate another deal, as yet unspecified ? the negotiate another deal, as yet unspecified? the reality is unless they vote this deal, they will become the handmaiden of hard brexit. i absolutely agree with my right honourable friend. he alludes to the fa ct honourable friend. he alludes to the fact there is a 78 day plan being put forward by the opposition, which the eu have made clear is not credible. their sister parties have made clear is not desirable, and which i suspect many on their own backbenches recognises not doable,

and yet they persist with it. i will make some progress and of course my fellow cambridge college, i will come back shortly. one issue which has been raised in regards to the backstop was relating particularly to whether the backstop damages the european union and also in terms of whether it would be used in terms of whether it would be used in terms of whether it would be used in terms of trade negotiations. it is for that reason that we have published a paper on northern ireland in respect of that. but i recognise that that alone will not be sufficient for all of the concerns that colleagues may have. but i think it‘s a welcome step forward. firstly, an event that a subsequent agreement that meets the objectives of the backstop will not be ready by 2020, we will face a choice as to whether to seek to extend the implementation period or bring the backstop into effect. a mandatory process of consultation with the northern ireland assembly will happen in that scenario. before any

decision is taken on whether to seek to extend the implementation period, the assembly would be given the opportunity ahead of any parliamentary scrutiny to express its view. those views will then be brought before parliament prior to a vote at westminster and this procedure place is a clear obligation on the uk government, guaranteeing a strong voice for northern ireland. we will consult the parties of northern ireland on the parties of northern ireland on the details of these proposals on how best to provide for them. let me make progress on the section and then happily take further interventions. the protocol allows for a lineman interventions. the protocol allows fora lineman in interventions. the protocol allows for a lineman in northern ireland with a small fraction of eu single market rules ? studio: we are going to pull away from that but if you wa nt to to pull away from that but if you want to watch that, bbc parliament has continuous coverage as the debate continues in the house of commons. there is a lot of attention on the views of the members of parliament but what do voters want their mps to parliament but what do voters want theirmps to do? parliament but what do voters want their mps to do? what do they think should happen if the deal is rejected? we can talk now to sirjohn curtice, professor of politics

at the university of strathclyde, who‘s published some research today on this. hejoins us from edinburgh. it is always good to see. what do you think the public does want? pasta the difficulty the government it was properly hoping by delaying the result from december two this week, that the public would have begun to got behind the deal and that tory mps who were doubtful about the deal would be encouraged to vote in favour. the truth is, it hasn‘t happened. it has been such a fee brow political season that polling was going on over christmas and the new year but that polling has confirmed it is roughly around the order of twice as many people who say they are opposed to the deal, as to those who say they are in favour. the polls don‘t show any great movement over time. the one important caveat is it is still the case that around 33% of voters, even two months after their withdrawal

treaty was first published, who still say i don‘t know whether i support it or oppose it or not. so we shouldn‘t give the impression there clearly a large swathes of the public who are deeply opposed. there clearly is plenty of suspicion but perhaps also a fair degree of confusion and perhaps even incomprehension about some of the details of the debate upon which mps embarked on again. what does polling suggests the public feels about leaving the eu without a deal? there isa leaving the eu without a deal? there is a substantial body of leave voters, perhaps around half of them, who say at the end of the day that‘s what they think we should do. and if you ask voters, give them a range of options about which to happen, the single most popular option amongst leave voters is leaving without a deal. although that‘s only half of leave voters. at the other end of the spectrum, remain voters, the

most popular option is we should have a second eu referendum. i think the crucial thing to understand is amongst the electorate as a whole, there is no consensus about how we should proceed if the government we re should proceed if the government were to lose next tuesday. none of these propositions get the support of more than a quarter of the electorate. the electorate is very clearly divided and uncertain about how we should handle brexit. i think more broadly, mps, some have been saying given the house of commons is at risk of coming to an impasse, there not a clear majority in favour of anything, it may well be the case that if that is true of the house of commons, it might be quite a fair reflection of the wider public and we shouldn‘t necessarily assume it would be easier to get an answer out of the wider public, should some proposition be put to them about the future of brexit. the irony of the prime minister‘s deal is it has united some remain and leave voters?

that is the biggest difficulty for the prime minister. one of the things our government has been trying to argue is at the end of the day, what we‘re trying to do is implement the will the 17 million or so implement the will the 17 million or so people who voted to leave. the problem is, the polls suggest that leave voters are almost as unhappy with the deal as remain voters. a clear majority of them are opposed to it. of course, the reasons why they are opposed are different from they are opposed are different from the reasons of remain voters. for remain voters it looks like the judgment they are making is not to do with the details of the northern ireland backstop but they... this is too hard a brexit. for many leave voters, and we just said too hard a brexit. for many leave voters, and wejust said many too hard a brexit. for many leave voters, and we just said many of them quite fancy leaving without a deal, the deal is too soft. the problem that theresa may has heard throughout the brexit process, it essentially unveiled the chequers agreement lastjuly is in trying to

go for a compromise that is designed to keep her party together and also designed to give both remain and leave voters at least something of what they want, the trouble is that both those groups now feel they don‘t have enough of what they want and therefore it is a rather friendless compromise, that is not the first choice of most people. if you asked people to choose between leaving without a deal, remaining and mrs may‘s deal, in most polls, mrs may‘s deal comes third. and mrs may‘s deal, in most polls, mrs may's deal comes third. those, it would appear, would be the three questions. if there was another referendum. is there any sense there isa referendum. is there any sense there is a growing feeling of backing another referendum ? is a growing feeling of backing another referendum? the straight a nswer another referendum? the straight answer is we don‘t know, because nobody in the last two months has asked a question about a second eu referendum that was worded in the same way as any poll conducted before those two months. what we can say is this, we have had eight

different questions that have appeared on a variety of different poles about peoples attitudes towards a second eu referendum. the truth is whether or not there is a majority in favour depends on how the question is asked. if you ask people first of all, should there be a peoples vote or should there be a public vote? and in so doing you do not specify what the options would be. you might say, for example, should the public decide to accept or reject the deal but not make it clear what rejecting would then mean, you tend to get a plurality in favour. however, if you ask people whether or not there should be a second referendum and don‘t mention the words peoples vote and you make it clear also that remain would be one of the options on the ballot paper, then polls at that time tend to find a majority in favour. the reason basically is leave voters, ask them whether or not the public should be able to decide about the deal, some of them say, maybe that sounds not too bad but it is still

the case the majority of them are against. make it clear we are going to have another referendum about whether or not we stay inside the european union or not and leave voters are overwhelmingly opposed. the truth is this is not a proposition that at the moment at least, looks capable of uniting the nation. it is, for the most part, a remain supported proposition, one thatis remain supported proposition, one that is associated with the remain side and one leave voters are not keen on. depending on how it‘s worded, they find against. keen on. depending on how it‘s worded, they find againstm keen on. depending on how it‘s worded, they find against. it is quite cold here, my brain is getting adult. is there anything i haven‘t asked you, something you have come up asked you, something you have come up with that you are itching to tell me? customer i think all of that is fair but one other thing which should they assess. we should also be aware that if we were to return to the public, with the question that we asked two and half years ago, we again frankly are not sure what the answer would be. much of the campaigning for peoples vote

seems to be predicated on the assumption that it is pretty darn clear if we were to get another vote, we would change our mind. yes, on average, the opinion polls at the moment say remain 53% leave, 47%. a small majority in favour of remain. leaving aside the fragility of opinion polls, which i don‘t need to remind you, what we should be aware of is if you look at the innards of the polls, the fact of remain have a leader is not largely the product of leave voters switching to remain. they are a few but almost counterbalanced by voters who have switched the other way. both of those are very small groups. the reason why many of the polls show a small remain lead is those people who did not vote to one half years ago, who are disproportionately younger people, are more likely to say they will remain then leave. which leaves open the question, would they turn up to vote a second time round? and therefore the outcome of a second referendum might depend on actually who makes it to

the polling station. any expectation that we would come up with a resort that we would come up with a resort that was any more decisive than two yea rs that was any more decisive than two years ago is certainly an expectation that should be kept very quiet for the time being, because it doesn‘t seem to be very realistic. thank you very much, always good to talk to you. let‘s go back to the debate, the brexit secretary is still on his feet and we can join now. in terms of the four freedoms and the fact we have a mutual interest in avoiding entering into the backstop. indeed, since the last debate, there has been progress through the december council, in terms of the confirmation of its commitment to negotiate and conclude a subsequent agreement was that the eu 27 gave assurance in relation to the future partnership with the uk by stating that the eu stands ready to embark preparations immediately

after the signature of the withdrawn agreement to ensure negotiations can start as soon as possible after the withdrawal. that goes to the point the honourable gentleman was raising, which in terms of the intent from both sides to actually make early progress, in terms of the issues he is addressing. i will give way. he talks about the risks to what... the risk to the united kingdom. this is an opportunity for independence and underlined by the fact this government has shown more respect and engagement of the government of ireland that it has to the government of scotland, showing independence gives you power, voice and respect. something the uk government doesn‘t show the scottish government doesn‘t show the scottish government that shows the irish government, the independent country in spades. the celts who are independent are in a better situation than those stuck with westminster. there is a legitimate point in the house as to how we engage as a whole and with members

on all sides, as we move into the next phase. i have already touched on, in terms of the devolved administrations, my desire, the prime minister‘s commitment to look at how we do that in a more targeted way. i think you look at the first phase, a huge amount of hours spent on engagement. the prime minister herself and spent a huge amount of hours at this dispatch box. i think there are opportunities for us to work ina there are opportunities for us to work in a much more targeted way, to listen to some of the concerns ? studio: if you want to keep listening to that, bbc parliament is the place but right now, time foran for an update on the weather. hello. today probably the coldest day this week. another frost in today probably the coldest day this week. anotherfrost in places overnight tonight but not as cold in scotland. more cloud which is spilling its way slowly southwards. a northerly breeze and the cloud beginning to thin a bit. the lowest temperatures, where we have clearer skies, more across the southern half of the uk, down to —3 “11 in rural

areas was not as cold as last night in scotland because there is more cloud. a bit of rain and drizzle coming from that cloud which will sink southwards into the southern half of the uk later on in the morning and threw thursday afternoon. so losing the sunshine here. cloud breaking up the northern ireland, scotland and northern income. they view showers towards the north—west. temperatures are a shade higher than today. friday sees some sunny shade higher than today. friday sees some sunny spells, a lot of dry weather continuing. into the weekend, some rain, not a great deal, most in the north west. some sunshine at times but some stronger winds this weekend, more of a north—westerly wind. so it should stay on the mild side. hello, you‘re watching afternoon live. i‘m simon mccoy.

today at 3:00pm. $0, the ayes have it. the ayes have it. the government suffers another defeat, as mps approve an amendment which forces theresa may to show parliament her brexit plan b within three days if she loses the vote on her deal. mps are now debating theresa may‘s brexit plan, a month after she cancelled the original vote due to lack of support. here‘s the scene live in the house of commons where that debate is taking place. brexit secretary stephen barclay selling the deal. police are treating the fatal stabbing of a 14—year—old boy who was knocked off a moped in east london as a targeted attack. he‘s been named locally as jayden moody. look at me. look at me! how dare you! close your eyes. and the favourite‘s the favourite — the comedy starring olivia colman scoops up a whopping 12 nominations for this year‘s bafta awards. and we‘ve got the sport with ollie

foster. tottenham‘s new stadium saga continues, they can‘t move in until at least march. and there‘s more cup football tonight, we‘ll look ahead to burton‘s tough trip to manchester city. we‘ll bejoining you for a full update just after half—past. darren bett has all the weather. good afternoon. there‘s been some sunshine earlier today after a frosty start but there will be some frosty start but there will be some frost around overnight tonight. but there is crowd coming in from the i‘m sick and we are heading back to square i‘m sick and we are heading back to square one i‘m sick and we are heading back to square one later in the week. all the details coming up. —— there is cloud coming in from the atlantic. this is afternoon live. i‘m simon mccoy in a rather noisy westminster. in the past half—hour the government has suffered

another brexit defeat in the house of commons. mps voted to force the government to come back to parliament within three days if the prime minister‘s eu withdrawal deal is rejected with fresh plans for how it will leave the eu. the defeat followed an angry dispute in the house of commons about whether a vote on the issue should even have been allowed at all. it comes at the start of five more days of debate on mrs may‘s deal, ahead of a vote on tuesday. the pm cancelled a vote on her plans last month after admitting she was likely to face a heavy defeat. at prime minister‘s questions, opposition parties accused theresa may of having nothing new to offer. in the words ofjeremy corbyn "not one single dot or comma has changed". the prime minister is hoping new proposals on northern ireland will be enough to persuade mps to change their mind. here‘s that moment from the commons when the government suffered what could turn out to be a significant defeat. the ayes to the right, 308. the noes to the left, 297. thank you.

the ayes to the right, 308. the noes to the left, 297. so, the ayes have it. the ayes have it. unlock. after the vote, brexit secretary stephen barclay opened the debate on theresa may‘s brexit plan. we continue to believe that this is the best deal to honour the referendum result and deliver the certainty for our businesses, our citizens and our security. it was clear that there was much that members agreed with, but we listens to the views of the house, which in particular expressed concerns in relation to the backstop. we therefore pause the debate to enable those concerns to be discussed with the eu leaders. today, we have published a document entitled the uk

government commitments to northern ireland and its integral place in the united kingdom, which sets out the united kingdom, which sets out the domestic reassurances we can provide. as the prime minister has said, these are one aspects of our strategy to reassure the house. i also want to reassure colleagues that whatever the outcome of this debate we will respond rapidly, recognising that we must provide parliament with as much security as possible. well the main sticking point when it comes to the deal is still the irish backstop — the contingency arrangement which will prevent a hard border on the island of ireland. the government says it is ready to offer more reassurances, but as our ireland correspondent chris page explains, they‘re not likely to wash with the dup. it is still all about the border and the backstop. this morning the prime minister published what she described as reassurances, proposals she hoped would win over the democratic unionists, the party at the parliamentary pivot point, but the dup dashed those hopes pretty quickly. in essence what the government was saying was that if the backstop kicks in then the stormont assembly

would have to agree to any changes to eu trade rules that would govern how the backstop would work. one major problem — the stormont assembly basically doesn‘t exist at the moment. it is two years to the day since the late martin mcguinness resigned as deputy first minister, in effect bringing to an end the power—sharing devolved government his party sinn fein had been in with the dup. disagreements between those two parties have rumbled on. they do not agree on very much but they do agree these new government proposals are not acceptable, but for different reasons. the dup say they do not go far enough, they‘re not legally binding and therefore do not provide assurances they want that unionism‘s position won‘t be undermined in the united kingdom. sinn fein, if you like, almost take the opposite argument to arrive at the same conclusion, saying the proposals would give the dup a veto over the backstop and that a backstop that can be vetoed is not a backstop at all. so, as regards the bottom line on these government proposals, in orderfor it to be in place at all, the stormont assembly

would have to be restored and the general view here is that the current situation and impasse over brexit makes any restoration of devolution even more unlikely. chris page in stormont. we can cross live now to the house of commons where that debate is continuing. on his feet is brexit secretary stephen barclay. because of the unique circumstances of northern ireland, because it is the only part of the uk with a land border, and the fact it has the history in terms of the peace process, how do we provide that guarantee? the insurance one doesn‘t want to have to call on, but how do we ensure there is that guarantee for the concerns the honourable lady set out earlier. i applaud the secretary of state and his excellent ministerial team in the department for exiting the eu for all their efforts at this challenging time for government will stop in december the attorney

general published in his legal advice a statement on the backstop and in it he says, and i quote, despite statements in the protocol that it despite statements in the protocol thatitis despite statements in the protocol that it is not intended to be permanent, the international law, the protocol would endure indefinitely until and unless a superseding agreement took its place in whole or in part. does the secretary of state's position mean thatis secretary of state's position mean that is unchanged, notwithstanding the reassurances guarded to date, and does it mean that in international law there is still the risk of being trapped indefinitely in the backstop? with characteristic aplomb my honourable friend has alluded to one of the key issues in this debate. it‘s about the balance of risk and how one assesses the balance of risk. what the attorney general said in his statement in december to the house when these issues were explored in great detail, was that this ultimately is a political decision as to how one

assesses those balance of risk. in a way it is the same point of concern is that members have expressed on the union. and there are other concerns within the element of the backstop and the issue of that small section within the backstop in terms of where eu doctor but will continue. what is the risk of that and the safeguards i have alluded to today, how does that balance of risk aligned with some of the other risks, the risk of inaction? that‘s where my predecessor,, someone i hold in high regard, that‘s the difference. it‘s not the lack of understanding, he understands these issues with great depth, but it is where one assesses the balance of risk. i think the attorney general in his comments to the house, dealt with this in some detail. i will give way to the honourable gentleman. i support the backstop. what concerns me is future trade relations. we would essentially be

renegotiated access to the biggest market is a third country of stop wouldn't that leave it in a vulnerable position? it's a statement of legal position that to enter into a permanent arrangement we need to be a third party. this is pa rt we need to be a third party. this is part of the difficulty of the situation. that is just the reality. that is why one needs to have an implementation period. what we have in the political declaration is a framework. what we have in the business statement on the december council is a commitment. we have something which actually gives legal force for ensuring that momentum is there. we have a shared endeavour because it is in neither side‘s interest to trigger it. so there is a mechanism, a framework and process to address that. but he is absolutely right, there is further significant work to be done on that. that is what the job of a house will be moving forward in taking that. i

will give way. i wonder if my honourable friend agrees with me that it honourable friend agrees with me thatitis honourable friend agrees with me that it is somewhat inconsistent for snp and plaid cymru mps to suggest britain would not be in a position to draw up a trade treaty with the eu as to draw up a trade treaty with the euasa to draw up a trade treaty with the eu as a third party when they both believe that an independent scotland or wales would be in a position to draw up trade treaties with the uk, if they got independence, god forbid. my right honourable friend is right to draw the inconsistencies of the snp position, and in particular their biggest market being the united kingdom. stephen barclay continue to try to sell theresa may‘s deal at the start of five days of scheduled debate. we can go to vicki young in the lobby of parliament. our chief political correspondent. yet another defeat for the government over brexit at

this time. it is trying to change the timetable that has been set out. meaning next tuesday if the prime minister does not get her way on her brexit deal, she will not have 21 days to come back to the house of commons with a plan b, she would only have three days. and because of that defeat meant the number of conservatives did vote against the government and one of them, sarah wollaston, is with me now. what was your thinking behind voting for this amendment and why do you think it was important? we are only 79 days away from crashing out with no deal accidentally. many of us are very worried that the government has been running down the clock. this is not acceptable. the consequences of no deal are really serious. we want to say to the government, if your deal does not pass next week, we do not have the luxury of 21 days to be delaying. we only need three days. you have three days to come back with a plan b. this is what this is

trying to do, prevent us getting closer to the cliff edge of 29th march without a decision being made. as you heard in there, there are many people who feel that the decision by the speaker to even allow that folk to take place has been controversial because in the past it has not been allowed that a backbench mp can try to make that kind of change to a business motion. and there are some who say that the speaker is not independent in this. this is extraordinary. it's a group of ha rd this is extraordinary. it's a group of hard brexiteers who have been arguing that parliament should be able to take back control. and now parliament is taking back control, they are complaining about that. the reality is that all this was doing was allowing parliament to express its view on whether or not we should just keep running the clock down for another 21 days with no decision and all your certainty that would bring for communities and businesses, —— and all the uncertainty that would bring. or whether we should be moving forward with a shorter

timeframe. all the arguments you are hearing are from people who want us to actively crash out with no deal and parliament is saying no. we saw it yesterday that parliament is very opposed to no deal because the majority of parliamentarians are deeply worried about the consequences of that. are you confident parliament could stop a no deal scenario? as you know, brexiteers and lots of others would point to say that the default legal position is that on march 29 we would leave without a deal. that is why many of the hard brexiteers are unhappy with the speaker's decision today, because they see that as their route to a hard, crash out and no—deal brexit. but what we are saying is that from now on, parliament, you will see a guerrilla campaign of parliament, through a numberof campaign of parliament, through a number of motions will keep pointing out to the government that there is no consent to a no—deal brexit.

that's what this is about. parliament can't set the agenda and tell government what to do actively. but it can keep reminding the government they are deeply unhappy with the path that is being taken. that is what we are seeing. the problem is we do know what mps are against. what we don‘t know is what there is a consensus for. so we are in limbo, if you like, and there doesn‘t seem to be a route out of it. what is the answer? what do you wa nt it. what is the answer? what do you want plan b to be? there is a clear impasse here. there is no majority for no deal. certainly there is no majority for the prime minister's deal. there is no majority for a norway style option. but the only deal on the table, the brexit reality, if you like, is the prime minister's deal. my view is because parliament has reached an impasse, the right thing for her to do at this stage is to say, parliament can't decide so i will take it

directly to the people and say to people, this is brexit. is this what you voted for, is this what you meant by brexit, or would you prefer to stay in the european union on the deal we already have ? to stay in the european union on the deal we already have? a simple choice. what if it is the same result? that would be informed and valid consent, as you would for any operation or procedure if you were going into hospital, you have to be able to explain to people what the operation is, way up the risks and benefits and allow them to make the decision. people are entitled to make a decision that others think is the wrong one, but the point is, thatis the wrong one, but the point is, that is what constitutes valid and informed consent. some would say they have already given their view. i don't agree. you will not consent to an operation three years in advance without knowing what the operation was and without being able to weigh up the risks and benefits will stop that is not valid consent. now we know what the brexit surgery involves, what the deal is, this is

the time to go back to people and say, this is it warts and all. do we have your consent? it's not about overturning democracy. in fact, i completely reject this notion we keep getting from the government that somehow this is a threat to democracy or overturning it. you do not say that about having a follow—up general election in a few years' time. it's about going back and checking you have valid, informed consent to the only brexit deal that's on the table. that's what i hope will happen next. sarah wollaston, thank you. next tuesday we will find out if a plan b is required or if theresa may gets her deal through parliament. required or if theresa may gets her dealthrough parliament. vicki young, thank you. we can take you straight back into the house of commons chamber where brexit secretary stephen barclay is still answering questions. the position of the courts is that you cannot unilaterally extend article 50. that requires consent from all

other 27 member states. in particular, the fact that the courts we re particular, the fact that the courts were clear that the only way would be to revoke. and to revoke on the basis of a permanent decision. i feel based on the manifesto is that more than 80% of the electorate voted in favour of two parties who we re voted in favour of two parties who were backing a decision to leave. page 2a of the labour manifesto gave that commitment, so i think it would be divisive to the country for us to proceed. i will give way and then conclude. as someone who did not vote for triggering article 50, i would ask him to consider very carefully if he genuinely does not wa nt carefully if he genuinely does not want a no deal, and i know there are many cabinet members who don't want ano many cabinet members who don't want a no deal. is it not time the government came forward, when it is

defeated next week, with a specific proposal, and he has made clear the difficulties of extending the process, a specific proposal, either to have a people's vote, to choose between staying in the european union as we are now, or the government's proposal, or to revoke article 50 so we can have a national consultation to get something right, like they did in ireland on the abortion issue. i very much respect the principled position the honourable member took in terms of his vote on article 50. but it is only consistent to say that if one recognises the majority of the house, which is what he‘s saying to me one should do next week, that he himself should recognise the majority of the house wants to trigger article 50. that sets a timetable. from a consistency point of view he needs to accept that. the consequence of triggering article 50

is that we either leave with a deal, the prime minister‘s deal, the european union has made clear is the only deal and it‘s not logical to say the party opposite does that they can negotiate another deal in they can negotiate another deal in the time remaining. he is nodding his head as do many others on the benches, therefore they have to accept that the risk is therefore no deal. a responsible government, and ijoin him in not wanting no deal to stop there are some members in the house you think no deal is something they are very relaxed about and i don‘t think that is something we should be relaxed about, for issues around data and many others that need to be addressed, but he needs to a cce pt need to be addressed, but he needs to accept or stop i will take one more intervention and then wind up. lam more intervention and then wind up. i am grateful to the secretary of state. yesterday he mentioned outside the house that he is beginning to get used to being the punching bag in the house, so i will try not to metaphorically punch him. but when he refers to no deal, having said it would be irresponsible, in light of the re ce nt irresponsible, in light of the recent vote, can he rule that out,

because it would be catastrophic. the bank of england has said the economy would be at worse case scenario 8% off. the government's deal would make us nearly 4% work off, the economy. neither of those are good prospects for our country. can he at least keep an open mind about a public vote if all else fails? i respect the concern the honourable lady house but it is not in the power of an individual minister to say it will not happen because the house has to decide what it is for. the house is very good at saying what it is against, but the reality is, having triggered article 50, we either leave with a deal, and i don‘t think it is credible to say we can negotiate another in the 78 days. it is a risk to the peace process , days. it is a risk to the peace process, which is a fine achievement that should be cherished. but it cannot be ruled out, which is why the deal on the table is the right one and one we should vote on. 79

days before we leave the european union, the house should now give citizens and businesses the certainty they seek. the way of doing so is to back this deal. after two years of hard fought negotiation that the prime minister has secured. it is for that reason, mr speaker, that i commend the deal to the house andi that i commend the deal to the house and i hope all members, mindful of the risk of uncertainty that will flow otherwise, will respond to that by backing this deal. the secretary of state has concluded his oration thank you for stop the question is as on the order paper. keir starmer. thank you, mr speaker. it is a pleasure to finally resume this debate. 30 days ago, on the 10th of december, the prime minister told this house that the meaningful vote would be deferred. she did of course do so without consulting the house on that issue. and the grounds which she laid out on the tenth december,

andi she laid out on the tenth december, and i quote, was that if the government went ahead and held the vote which was due the next day, the deal would be rejected by a significant margin. that was her judgment call the day the vote. what she said on the tenth was that she would do everything possible to secure would do everything possible to secure further assurances, particularly over the issue on the northern ireland backstop. the leader of the house went further at the time, saying that going back to the time, saying that going back to the eu and seeking reassurances in the eu and seeking reassurances in the form of legally binding reassu ra nces the form of legally binding reassurances is the form of legally binding reassurances is absolutely doing the right thing. so the implication was that this was a pause to allow further assurances, legally binding reassurances, according to the leader of the house. the international trade secretary, with his usualforesight, international trade secretary, with his usual foresight, said international trade secretary, with his usualforesight, said it is international trade secretary, with his usual foresight, said it is very difficult to support the deal if we do not get changes to the backstop. these are his words. i‘m not even

sure the cabinet would agree for it to be put to the house of commons without those changes. that was his assessment. these were senior members of the cabinet indicating to parliament and to the country that the deal, the proposition before the house needed to be changed if it was to be voted on and not defeated by a substantial majority. they were of course challenged. they were challenged on the basis this was just a way of avoiding a humiliating defeat and they were just running down the clock. and now, 30 days on, those rebuttals ring hollow. the prime minister is often mocked for saying, nothing has changed. but this time, nothing has changed. the proposition before the house today is the same proposition the prime minister put before the house on december five when she opened the initial debate. i have my own copies, but these two copies were laid there at the beginning of this debate. they are the proposition

before the house. as everybody in this house knows, these are precisely the same two documents that were put before the house... when we go through the lobby next tuesday we are voting for or against these two unchanged documents. i will give way. since he hasjust lifted the withdrawal deal, i would hope that in fact he has, and i'm sure he has, being the learner gentleman he is, read on page 307, the guarantee and protection to the good friday agreement, the belfast agreement and the consent principle, that his party, the labour party, we re that his party, the labour party, were the architects of, thank the lord, 20 years ago. that put an end to the appalling violence of 30 plus years in northern ireland where 302

police officers lost their lives. thousands of innocent people lost their lives in thousands of innocent people lost theirlives ina thousands of innocent people lost their lives in a terrorist campaign. with the right honourable and learner gentleman explain to this house and the irish diaspora in their constituencies how it is the labour party are voting down this deal that guarantees... let labour party are voting down this deal that guarantees. .. let me take that head on. it is a very important point. our party, both parties, played an important part in the peace process, and i genuinely think there is a near consensus across the house as to the importance of that agreement. we have been very proud of upholding that. even in the course of this debate in the last two years, when it has come up, there has been a reiteration of the principles was not i worked in northern ireland with the policing board for five years, implementing some of the recommendations from the good friday agreement so i have first—hand knowledge of how it is seen first—hand knowledge of how it is seen and what the impact was before change and what it is now. but i

don‘t think it is fair to characterise anybody who says these two documents are not the right deal for our country, on the basis that thatis for our country, on the basis that that is to undermine the good friday agreement. there can be no issue, no challenge to the government. that cannot be right. and in addition to that... i will finish this point will stop i have stood up this dispatch box and moved amendment after amendment to have a customs union and single market deal, which i genuinely believe are the only way of securing no hard border in ireland, and that has been voted down on every occasion by the government. every time we have put that amendment. to say we have done nothing to protect that... i will give way. i don't think the right honourable gentleman has answered the key question asked by the honourable lady. because i can't

understand why the labour party, in joining with these criticisms of the irish backstop, he has repeated his commitment to a permanently open border. he has also repeated, and i agree with him, that you only have a permanently open border if you have a customs union and regulatory alignment. and if they are to be permanent, that has to be kept permanently. and what the critics on this side of the house have been saying with the backstop agreement is that we are not allowed to cancel it unilaterally. if you give them that power, it's no longer a permanent, open border. it does smack of opportunism, with the greatest respect, that the labour party isjoining with greatest respect, that the labour party is joining with opponents of the backstop, with whom actually they have no agreement whatever politically. the answer is to have the same open border for the whole united kingdom, and to get the

united kingdom, and to get the united kingdom, and to get the united kingdom in a single market and into regulatory alignment. which is not inconsistent with the referendum. let me deal with that point. that is to suggest that the customs arrangements under the backstop are the same as the customs arrangement we currently have. and they are not. i have read it a number of times in detail. i know what the customs union we are in looks like. and i know that the one with the backstop is fundamentally different. it is fundamentally different. it is fundamentally different to the amendments we have been faithfully putting forward for the last 12, 18 months in this place. therefore it‘s not a fair criticism to say that because it has the name customs arrangement or customs union, it‘s all the same. it obviously isn‘t. there is a very different arrangement for northern ireland compared to england, wales and scotland. as the one in great britain is not the one we are in at the moment. amongst the deficiencies is that during any period of the backstop is that during any period of the ba cksto p we is that during any period of the backstop we would not have any say

over trade agreements in the future because that is not being built in because that is not being built in because the government is pretending it will not go on very long. i will address the point about having a safe stop we take no advantage of trade agreement. we cannot strike our own agreements. and we take no advantage of agreements struck by the eu and that is a fundamental deficiency. pretending these issues are not there, and that we can‘t seriously engage or that somehow it undermines the importance that our party puts on the good friday agreement, is not right and not fair. that removes challenge. it is a serious document, the government has put before us to analyse and vote on and we are entitled to say it is not good enough. we will pull away from shadow brexit secretary keir starmer to take you back into the lobby. chief political correspondent vicki young is there with us. the beginning of five days of debate

on theresa may‘s deal. not the start she wanted, a government defeat, another one, this one trying to shorten that timetable between the moment where theresa may, if her deal is defeated, has to come back to the house of commons with a plan b. we can discuss it with dominic grieve, who was the architect of this. tell us why you wanted to do this in the first place? the government is making it clear they were never going to wait 21 days. they would know they would have to offer some kind of certainty pretty quickly of that deal was defeated? because it mag i‘m pleased to hear that but they could have accepted my amendment. there is a growing anxiety in the house of commons. we watched in december the government pulled the debate on the deal. that has delayed by four weeks its reconsideration and under the terms of the eu withdrawal act, they needn‘t have come back to the house before the middle of february with a motion. they had to come back with a statement earlier than that. we are getting very close to the 29th of

march. what i wanted to try to ensure was there was a clear signal to the government that if the government‘s deal is defeated next week, we have to have a serious dialogue between government and parliament about alternatives, otherwise we will end up, the crisis is deepening by the day. even if there is a dialogue, it doesn‘t change the numbers is positive at the moment, it doesn‘t seem there is a majority in favour of anything. mps are very good at saying what they don‘t want but there is no consensus? i agree, a lot of can kicking by government and in the house of commons, i accept that. but until we start having the dialogue, and if we avoid it we won‘t come to and if we avoid it we won‘t come to a sensible agreement. i think it is possible to reach that. i realise it will need people to listen to each other and consider the national interest and probably rise above party political considerations. that‘s what we have to try to achieve but we are not even starting it because the government controls

the agenda in this place and on the whole, i‘m afraid, the government has shown a really keen desire to try and minimise parliament‘s ability to influence this process. as you point out, theresa may doesn‘t have a clear majority. that is causing many of the problems. you are urging people to work together but what would you be willing to accept? your critics would say you are trying to stop brexit happening altogether. that is not true. the thing i have been trying to do is, the solution i think is best in this is to have a further referendum. and end up in the same position as we are now? i don't think we could. if we had a further referendum on the public were to say... in 2016 we said we wanted to leave as a theory, we are now happy to leave on the prime minister‘s deal and the majority wanted that, that is the end of it. even if i think this would be a big mistake and lots of members of parliament don‘t like it, we would have to accept that, that would be the end of it. it is wrong to say it would just perpetuate the

issue. i accept, to say it would just perpetuate the issue. iaccept, it to say it would just perpetuate the issue. i accept, it won‘t let the debate go away. we are a divided country on this issue and that will continue for years to come. but we have to meet the current crisis was that there may be other options but iam not that there may be other options but i am not persuaded by that but i‘m willing to listen to other options people might be willing to put forward. you want a second referendum that not a majority. it‘s ha rd to referendum that not a majority. it‘s hard to see what compromise you would accept between a second referendum and something else. would you accept the idea of a closer arrangement with the eu, but we still leave? a close arrangement with the eu might be possible but if you want a closer relationship with the eu, it has to be negotiated and you will still have their withdrawal and transition agreement that the house of commons is currently rejecting. so either they are going to a cce pt rejecting. so either they are going to accept that they want that because they think the destination is different or rule it out. i‘m

perfectly willing to listen to collea g u es perfectly willing to listen to colleagues who want to put that forward. no deal, in my view, is a crazy thing to do, but i do accept that i have some colleagues who believe it is the right course of action. i‘m even prepared to listen to them but i don‘t think they‘re likely to get a majority in the house agreeing with them. what do you think is the most likely scenario? next week, if theresa may‘s deal is voted down, you are only giving her three days to come back. it doesn‘t give her time to go back. it doesn‘t give her time to go back to brussels and get anything better? i would hope the government has been focusing on alternatives. it's has been focusing on alternatives. it‘s been pretty clear that over three and a half to four months that the prime minister‘s deal is in trouble. so i hope the government is paying some attention to this. if it isn‘t, all i can say is the sooner we have a debate and house of the better. what about the mood among your party? listening to the points of order in there, people shouting

down the speaker, well, trying to. it feels like the commons is out of control. i think that can be exaggerated. despite the many strains and stresses, we are coaches to each other. within political parties, we speak to each other. of course, it is not perfect. it‘s not what i ever had any expectation of experiencing when i came into parliament. there was a lot of heat today. i don‘t want to get dragged into that. the speaker made a decision. i would into that. the speaker made a decision. iwould have into that. the speaker made a decision. i would have had to accept his decision one way or the other and would have done so. he is there to make that decision and it is not for me to comment on that. dominic grieve, thank you very much indeed. this is only the first day of five days of debate before the meaningful vote next tuesday. vicki, thank you very much. hearing the views of dominic grieve, who won that amendment a short time ago in the house of commons. let‘s pick up on that. i‘m joined by

the conservative cabinet minister rory stewart. were you surprised the amendment got through and was it down to the speaker? yes. and totally down to the speaker. very unusual and probably against the advice of most. did he bend or break the rules?|j think this is a very mysterious building and working out the speaker‘s powers would need an expert. it was unusual and you wouldn‘t expect him to do that. expert. it was unusual and you wouldn't expect him to do that. you have said all along the prime minister because matt teale is the only deal and this is the deal that needs to get through. how we can dig that position, given what we have seen that position, given what we have seenin that position, given what we have seen in the last couple of hours? this is quite difficult. what dominic grieve has done with this amendment is try to force the prime minister to come back within three days with a new deal. which is not reasonable. in the end there are three choices here, staying in the european union, which is what

dominic grieve wants. there is no deal at all, which is the jacob rees—mogg view or you are in the territory of some kind of deal. but the whole point is, that is being debated in the next five days and put to the vote next tuesday. if it doesn‘t go through, what then? put to the vote next tuesday. if it doesn't go through, what then? my view is it has to be a deal, because people voted to leave the european union andi people voted to leave the european union and i think going out of the european union without a deal would be catastrophic. all these other things thatjeremy corbyn is talking about require going through the withdrawal agreement. it doesn‘t matter if you‘re talking about norway or canada or customs union, you have to pass through the withdrawn agreement to get there. at some point, somebody needs to calm parliament down and say, ok, logically, if you want no deal at all, i think that‘s economically very damaging but at least i can understand what you want. if you wa nt understand what you want. if you want no leaving the european union, i think it would be politically catastrophic, because people voted to leave, but i can understand what you want. what i cannot understand

is people who say, i want to deal but i don‘t want to steal foster in order to get any deal, you have to go through their withdrawal agreement. you want someone to put that view across calmly. that is what the brexit secretary is doing right now, defending his position over the next few days. i hear what your head is saying but is your heart telling you? this deal was dead, that is why she didn‘t put it to bed last time and nothing has changed? what my heart is telling me something very fundamental. to leave with no deal would be very, very damaging for our international reputation dined, i believe, for our economy. to just stay in the european union would be very damaging for our democracy. we know the country is split almost 50—50 on this issue. lurching to one extreme or another is going to put us in a polarised, toxic politics for the next a0 years. we need a deal and to heal and a middle ground. let's be realistic. you vote on tuesday. if the vote goes against the prime

minister‘s deal, with the amendment that‘s now brought in, it‘s going to bea no that‘s now brought in, it‘s going to be a no deal? i think that would be steeply damaging. but what i am saying is, that is the new itinerary, that is the new agenda. it's itinerary, that is the new agenda. it‘s become even more complicated. yesterday, yvette cooper, it won‘t necessarily default to no deal but be no deal or no money. no deal is the default. parliament is creating some kind of dog‘s breakfast with these amendments, ending up with no majority for anything for us that we need to reach into moderate people who believe in a deal and get them to vote for it. this is at the moment a little depressing, more than a little depressing. you wouldn‘t be depressed by this amendment if you are confident she would get the deal through. obviously i am not that confident is that you can see the maps, probably ao-50 that you can see the maps, probably a0—50 tory mps who seem to want no deal at all. boris is publicly saying he doesn‘t want to deal, he just wants to crash out. you have a

lot of people saying they won two separate ? the only way this can get through ultimately is to get mps right across the house, including labour mps to vote for a deal. that will only happen by reaching over to labourmps, including will only happen by reaching over to labour mps, including jeremy corbyn, who say they want a brexit deal and saying, 0k, who say they want a brexit deal and saying, ok, you want a brexit deal, you need a withdrawal agreement, let‘s get this done. you need a withdrawal agreement, let's get this done. i am wondering if that shows what the policy was, which was you had a bit of time, if this vote didn‘t go through next tuesday, the prime minister could go back to the eu, come back and have another vote. maybe go back to the eu if she lost that again and you would have a third one. that rug has now been pulled away from under you? what dominic grieve has done, i think, although at the moment what‘s going on with these parliamentary amendments is very confusing. but i believe what he is trying to do is provide more support for what he wa nts, provide more support for what he wants, which is a second referendum. so people who believe that we should go through this again, people like dominik, who believe we can somehow

a nswer dominik, who believe we can somehow answer the problems of the first referendum by having a second, will be pleased with this, because it increases the chance of parliament pushing for that. but it won‘t work in the end. that‘s why i think dominic is wrong. in the end, i don‘t think parliament will vote for a second referendum because every single member of parliament, every political party committed to respect the result of that referendum. just holding a second one isn‘t going to solve the problems of the first. if anything else, it will lead to a campaignfora third. anything else, it will lead to a campaign for a third. theresa may has four days to find a rabbit to pull out of a hat? pasta the prime minister will have to do an extraordinary amount of work. it‘s not just about rabbits extraordinary amount of work. it‘s notjust about rabbits out of hat but it‘s about having a mature conversation with dominic grieve, yvette cooper and jeremy corbyn and explain the british public voted narrowly to leave and that means two things, we need to leave the european union but because it was a narrow vote, a8% didn‘t want to leave, it needs to be a moderate and pragmatic thing which reassures

remain as. that means connections to the european union diplomatically, economically, a strong partnership with europe. all that can only come with europe. all that can only come with a deal. how do you think theresa may is feeling right now? she is a heroic person, honestly. what she‘s been through in the last few months is extraordinary for stop you can pick up a little bit of the frustration that you must be picking up frustration that you must be picking up in my voice and everybody else‘s voice, but in the end, the fundamental question is where does britain want to be? i think strategically, we want to be in a position where we leave europe but remained very close to it so we have options. europe could change over the next five or ten years, inner circles, outer circles. we want to re—engage at different levels. it is not a bad place to be, to be economically connected to europe, in the market, trading with it and thinking about our options. and we can get there but to do that, we need to suffer a little bit of this theatrical behaviour going on in parliament. rory stewart, always good to see you. thank you. keir

starmer is still questioning the brexit secretary so let‘s return to the chamber of the house of commons. there will always be an argument about whether you have gone far enough. i have said we will have to fulfil our financial obligations for the very reasons the secretary of state said, which is if you are about to do trade agreements or any agreements with anyone else in the world, at the same time as walking away from the international agreements or obligations you‘ve got, you won‘t get very far. that does not mean, i do not have concerns about the withdrawal agreement and concerns about the backstop in particular. the backstop has become the central issue for two reasons. one, because of the lack of progress on the future relationship andi progress on the future relationship and i will talk about that in a moment, and secondly because of the avowed aim of some on those benches to die as far as possible from eu alignment. it is that risk, that fear that has driven the debate on the backstop and that could have been avoided months and months ago but i will give way because i said i would. i‘m doubly grateful to the honourable gentleman. it is helpful

to address this after the interventional by my right honourable friend. can hejust interventional by my right honourable friend. can he just take this one stage further and explain to the house, if it were the case there was a cross—party agreement, on the terms of an eu— uk customs union of the kind he was describing, and if there were some variant of a strong single market deal, whether norwegian or otherwise, is he saying that it norwegian or otherwise, is he saying thatitis norwegian or otherwise, is he saying that it is the position of the labour party that it would then cooperate with her majesty‘s government, to arrive at an agreement about how the political declaration is reshaped? in such a way as to enable the withdrawal agreement and political declaration to go forward, so we could exit on the 29th of march? there is the customs union point and the single market point, and others in terms of rights, protections, workplace rights, environmental rights and so on. obviously, at some

stage, if we are to leave other than with out a deal, there has to be a consensus in this house for something. that is why wasting the last 30 days has been so reg retta ble, last 30 days has been so regrettable, because that is where we need to get to. what i will say is this: at no point has anyone reached out across his house at all. even after the snap election. i actually personally thought that at some stage somebody might give me a ring and say, well, what would be the main features that we could at least begin, is it worth having a discussion about? but the second point is this... their second point gives meat to this. we have put amendments down time and time again along these lines. time and time again, the government has just

blindly whipped against them without any regard to whether they were good, bad or indifferent, just they are opposition amendments so they are opposition amendments so they are going down. we know from the author of article 50 that it was drafted with the intention that it should never be used. so therefore, the 29th of march is an arbitrary date and it is only now that the government has started to reach out and suggest and indicate it might be willing to discuss brexit with other parts of this house, in order to get a consensus. but we have run out of time. so surely the government has now got to listen and consider the fa ct now got to listen and consider the fact that we may have to suspend article 50 or seek revocation? thank you for that intervention. i do accuse the government of running down the clock. it is a serious allegation, because the article 50 window is two years, it is very

short. the government started the two years short. the government started the two yea rs by short. the government started the two years by having a snap general election and lost two or three months. it then went through, it went through to the end of the phase one agreement. but it wasn‘t until june of last year that we even had a chequers plan. and therefore, the clock, the two year window has effectively been run down. there is a possible question of... i will in a possible question of... i will in a moment, let me finish the question. there is a question of extension of article 50. that may well be inevitable now, given the position we are in. but we can only seek it, because the other 27 have to agree. the other question is, a serious question i‘ve been engaging, the appetite of the eu after the way these negotiations have gone to actually start again and fundamentally change what‘s on the table. i have to say, and with regret, i genuinely think that the

way the government has gone around the negotiations has undermined a lot of the goodwill that otherwise would have been there, particularly with the red lines the prime minister laid down in the first place. i will give way once more but i would then need to get on. going back to my right honourable friend‘s intervention, which was very pertinent to the situation we are all in. he asked the question, if there was a cross—party agreement ona if there was a cross—party agreement on a form of customs union and sufficient regulation alignment and so sufficient regulation alignment and so on, is he saying on behalf of the labour party they were joining that positively, with a view to reaching a solution and moving on to the serious negotiations? he has turned it into an attack on the government. i agree with it, i share his criticism that the government should have made serious overtures to the opposition long, long ago. but as we are now so opposition long, long ago. but as we are now so short of time, and all of us are are now so short of time, and all of us are in danger of going towards a

no deal exit, which only the small minority in this house positively want, isn‘t it time for him to a nswer want, isn‘t it time for him to answer my right honourable friend‘s question? is the labour party available for discussions with a positive view to reaching a conclusion on a customs union and sufficient regulatory alignment? i have been available for discussions for the whole time i have been in this post. i have spoken to members on all benches about amendments, some of which have had cross—party support. we are going to have to have a discussion i think next week, starting after tuesday, about where we go next. we are all going to have to enter that in the right spirit, because i genuinely think, i genuinely think that leaving with no deal would be catastrophic. i genuinely think you can‘t do it on the 29th of march this year, it is simply not viable, for so many practical reasons. we are going to have to look, it seems to me, at what are the available

options that realistically are still on the table? what now are the merits of each of them? there are different options. we are just discussing one, there are other options i know members in my own party feel very strongly about, such asa party feel very strongly about, such as a public vote. but we will have to sit down and sit at credibly what are the options? and how does parliament take control of what happens next? we will enter that in the right spirit but were all going to have to do, i‘m afraid, have to acknowledge that some of the options that may have been there a year or two ago, and not there in the same shape and the same form as they would have been at the time of the ma nifesto. i really am going to make some progress because i have been giving m, progress because i have been giving in, giving way! mr speaker, i have made the point about this being the same proposition on the table. but let me... the shadow brexit secretary keir

starmer continuing to make his points on the first day of five of this renewed debate on the prime minister‘s brexit deal. therewith the leaderjeremy corbyn at his side. bbc parliament, if you want to keep watching the debate as it happens to us that we are going to look at the five days that follow and what will mps actually be weighing up and what is now at sta ke ? weighing up and what is now at stake? chris morris had this assessment. so, in downing street, they‘re trying to figure out the numbers in the house of commons, to work out whether they have any hope of getting this vote passed. but don‘t forget, amidst all the political drama, it‘s the documents that have been negotiated behind closed doors that are at the heart of the debate. so, we‘ve come into the cabinet room for a reminder of what mps are talking about, and eventually voting on, with the credibility of the prime minister and her brexit plan very much at stake. first of all, the withdrawal

agreement itself. this is the legally binding document that would take the uk out of the eu. it includes the financial settlement, or divorce bill, that the uk will pay — an estimated £39 billion. it also sets out basic rights for uk citizens elsewhere in the eu and eu citizens here in the uk and the terms of a transition period, of at least 21 months, after brexit, when all the rules would stay the same. but most controversial of all, there‘s the protocol on ireland and northern ireland, including the backstop plan for keeping the irish border as open as it is now under all circumstances. now, the backstop would only come into effect at the end of a post—brexit transition period if a future trade agreement to avoid a hard border hasn‘t been achieved. the prime minister has been given additional reassurances from the eu that the backstop would only ever be temporary and that no—one actually wants it to come into effect. but it still exists in the treaty and there is no unilateral way for the uk to get out of it without the eu‘s agreement. there is also a non—binding political declaration on the future

relationship between the uk and the eu. and the wording here is so vague that it doesn‘t offer any guarantee of any particular outcome. so, the government‘s facing an uphill battle to get this vote passed, and it will probably have to ask mps to vote more than once, maybe after getting even more reassurance from brussels. and after that, well, if the vote goes through, the withdrawal agreement then needs to be turned into uk law through new legislation. it also needs to be given the green light by the european parliament. and if all that happens in time, the uk will leave the eu on 29th march. but if the government is defeated, well, the default position is that the uk would still leave, but with no deal. or mps could try to come up with an alternative plan for leaving, a relationship more like norway‘s, for example, which is still in the single market. or we might be looking at a new prime minister, a new election, or even another referendum — which could mean no brexit at all. the truth is, no—one can say

for sure what is likely to happen over the next three months. this street has seen its fair share of drama in the past. but nothing quite like this. let‘s return to the chamber of the house of commons. keir starmer, the shadow brexit secretary still making his point. the red lines the prime minister laid down in the autumn of 2016, when she said, and i think i am right in saying she said this without, i know she said it without consulting the house, i think she said it without consulting the cabinet, that her red lines were, outside the customs union, outside the single market, no role for the european court of justice, the single market, no role for the european court ofjustice, and then added that if you are a citizen of the world, you are a citizen of nowhere. that was her interpretation of the referendum. you could argue it was good or bad but it was an

interpretation by a small team of three orfour interpretation by a small team of three or four people, not even the cabinet. certainly not this house. this is why we have only got 26 pages. because it got us off to such... the worst start to the negotiations. those were political choices, not necessities. the prime minister‘s choices and it set her on a path, and this is where it ended. asi a path, and this is where it ended. as i said just now, add to that, it was only in june as i said just now, add to that, it was only injune of this year that we got the chequers proposal. anybody who visited brussels between the triggering of article 50 and june of this year will have heard the same complaint as i did, which is we don‘t know what the uk is actually asking for. therefore, we can‘t really advance the negotiations. and it was injune of this year that we first got the chequers proposal. in brussels, they acknowledged at least they now had a plan on the table. i would just finish this point and then give way. of course, what chequers didn‘t do

was unlock the problem. because it was unlock the problem. because it was a plan that led immediately to cabinet resignations. it was a plan that mps here were quick to say they opposed and wouldn‘t agree to in any circumstances and a plan that the eu rejected. that is why you only have 26 pages, and they exposed the thinness of this. i willjust crack on and then make some further points. what we see from this document is that the envisaged future relationship will not deliver frictionless trade, it doesn‘t aspire to any more. no plan for a permanent customs union, no certainty for financial services. on workplace rights, environmental protections, nothing to ensure the standards don‘t fall behind over to stop no wonder the general secretary of the tuc said it was a bad deal for working people, bad forjobs and bad for rights. it also puts us... i

will finish the analysis and then ta ke will finish the analysis and then take interventions. it also places us take interventions. it also places us outside a whole raft of common eu programmes and agencies. again, much of this flowing directly from the prime minister‘s insistence that shouldn‘t be any role whatsoever for the european court. she put that red line down and when she did any meaningful participation in those bodies became very difficult. i was for five years the representatives of the uk and euro just, for five years the representatives of the uk and eurojust, which plays an important role in the investigation and prosecution are very serious offences across europe, as do other agencies. but in order to have the full persist to the patient that makes sense we have to accept the mechanisms that go with it. but the red line made it impossible and led to a document, led to a document as thin as this. i will give way. i have heard colleagues... we will pull away for the moment, on a day

where theresa may has had another setback with rebel tory mps joining forces with labour to affect a fresh blow to the government in the commons brexit vote on an amendment from dominic grieve, which effectively gives to reason made three days to come up with something else if she loses the vote here next tuesday. i will be back here in a few minutes but let‘s catch up with the weather with darren. hello, probably the cold est coldest day the week today. a thrust in places overnight tonight but not as cold in scotland. more cloud here thatis as cold in scotland. more cloud here that is spilling very slowly southwards. cloud beginning to thin a bit. the lowest temperatures where we have clear skies, more in the southern half of the uk, down to —3 or —a in rural areas. not as cold as it was last night in scotland because there is more cloud. a bit of rain and drizzle coming from that cloud which will sink

southwards into the southern half of the uk later on in the morning and threw thursday afternoon. so losing the sunshine here. cloud breaking up in northern ireland, scotland and northern england. if you shout towards the north—west. probably temperatures a shade higher than today for the friday see some sunny spells, a lot of dry weather continuing. into the weekend, some rain, nota continuing. into the weekend, some rain, not a great deal, both in the north west. some sunshine at times but some stronger winds this weekend, more of a north—westerly wind, so it should stay on the mild side. hello, you‘re watching afternoon live — i‘m simon mccoy. today at a:00pm.

so, the ayes have it. the ayes have it. the government suffers another brexit defeat, as mps approve an amendment which forces theresa may to bring new plans to parliament within three days if she loses the vote on her deal. but house of commons speakerjohn bercow is attacked by senior brexiteers for allowing the amendment to be voted on. myjob is not to be a cheerleader for the executive branch. myjob is to stand up for the rights of the house of commons. and in the last few minutes on this programme, justice minister rory stewart says the speaker‘s actions were "very unusual". how much of that was down to the speaker? totally down to the speaker. a very unusual thing he did andi speaker. a very unusual thing he did and i think probably against the advice of most people in the

parliamentary... here‘s the scene live in the house of commons as mps debate the prime minister‘s brexit deal. in other news, police are treating the fatal stabbing of a 1a—year—old boy who was knocked off a moped in east london as a targeted attack. he‘s been named locally as jayden moody. look at me. look at me! how dare you! close your eyes. the favourite‘s the favourite — the comedy starring olivia colman scoops up a whopping 12 nominations for this year‘s bafta awards. coming up on afternoon live all the sport with olly foster. tottenham‘s new stadium saga continues, they can‘t move in until at least march. and there‘s more cup football tonight with burton‘s tough trip to manchester city. and with the weather, it‘s darren bett. it's been a cold day, probably the coldest of the week. there will

be patchy frost tonight but there is more cloud heading our way and high pressure will shape our weather over the weekend. more on that later. hello everyone, this is afternoon live. i‘m simon mccoy. live in westminster. the government has this afternoon suffered another brexit defeat in the house of commons. mps voted to force the government, if the prime minister‘s eu withdrawal deal is rejected, to come back to parliament within three days with a plan of what to do next. the defeat followed an angry dispute in the house of commons about whether the speaker should have allowed a vote on the issue at all. it comes at the start of five more days of debate on mrs may‘s deal, ahead of a vote on tuesday. the pm cancelled a vote on her plans last month after admitting she was likely to face a heavy defeat. here‘s that moment from the commons

when the government suffered what could turn out to be a significant defeat. the ayes to the right, 308. the noes to the left, 297. thank you. the ayes to the right, 308. the noes to the left, 297. so, the ayes have it. the ayes have it. unlock. just what theresa may didn‘t need. earlier i spoke to justice minister rory stewart. i started by asking him whether he was surprised that the amendment took place, and how much of that was down to the speaker. a very unusual thing he did and i

think it would probably have been against the advice of most people on parliamentary procedure. are you saying he bent the rules or broke them? i think this is a very mysterious building and working out the speaker‘s power is, you would need a doctorate in political philosophy. but what he did was very unusual and you wouldn‘t expect it to usually. all along you have said the prime minister‘s deal is the only one and it has to get through. how weakened is that decision given what we have seen in the last couple of hours? this is difficult. what dominic grieve has done with this amendment is try to force the prime minister to come back within three days with a new deal, which is not reasonable. in the end there are three choices, staying in the european union, which is what dominic grieve wants. no deal at all, which is the jacob rees—mogg view. or you are in the territory of this deal. what if this vote doesn‘t

go through, then what then? my view is there has to be a deal. if people voted to leave the european union, which they did, and i think going out of the european union with no deal would be catastrophic. all of these things jeremy deal would be catastrophic. all of these thingsjeremy corbyn is talking about require going through the withdrawal agreement. doesn‘t matter if you talk about norway, canada, the customs union, you have to pass through the withdrawal agreement. somebody has to calm parliament down and say, logically if you want no deal at all, it is economically damaging but at least i understand what you want. if you wa nt understand what you want. if you want know to leaving the european union, i think that would be politically catastrophic because people voted to leave, but i can at least understand what they want. but i can‘t understand is people who say, i want a deal but not this deal. in order to get any deal, you have to go through the withdrawal agreement. that was rory stewart. after the vote, brexit secretary stephen barclay opened the debate on theresa may‘s brexit plan. we continue to believe that this is the best deal to honour

the referendum result and deliver the certainty for our businesses, our citizens and our security. it was clear that there was much that members agreed with, but we listened to the views of the house, which in particular expressed concerns in relation to the backstop. we therefore paused the debate to enable those concerns to be discussed with the eu leaders. today, we have published, mr speaker, a document entitled the uk government commitments to northern ireland and its integral place in the united kingdom, which sets out the domestic reassurances we can provide. as the prime minister has said, these are one aspect of our strategy to reassure the house. i also want to reassure colleagues that whatever the outcome of this debate we will respond rapidly, recognising that we must provide parliament with as much security as possible. labour‘s shadow brexit secretary sir keir starmer criticised the government‘s decision to delay the original vote on mrs may‘s deal,

warning it has increased the risk of a no—deal brexit. that is to suggest that the customs arrangements under the backstop are the same as the customs arrangements we currently have. and they are not. they are not. i have read it in detail. i have read it a number of times in detail, and i know what the customs union that we are in looks like. and i know that the one with the backstop is fundamentally different. and it is fundamentally different to the amendments we have been faithfully putting forward for 12, 18 months in this place. and therefore it isn't a fair criticism to say that because it's got the name customs arrangement, customs union, it's all the same. it obviously isn't. there is a very different arrangement for northern ireland to england, wales and scotland. and even the arrangement for england, wales and scotland is not the customs union that we are in at the moment. amongst the deficiencies is that of course during any period of the backstop, we wouldn't have any say over trade agreements in the future because that has not been built in because the government is pretending it will not go on very long.

and i will address the point about having a say. so we take no advantage of trade agreement. we can't strike our own agreements, and we take no advantage of trade agreements struck by the eu. that is a fundamental deficiency. and pretending these issues aren't there, we can't seriously engage with them, or that somehow it undermines the importance that our party puts on the good friday agreement is not right, and it's not fair. and that just removes challenge. this is a serious document. it's a document the government is putting forward, before us, to analyse and to vote on. and we are entitled to say it is not good enough. right now in the house of commons so keir starmer is still on his feet. this is inside the chamber. outside the chamber in the lobby is our chief political correspondent vicki young. i was speaking to rory stewart a short time ago. i have known him for a while and i think he‘s really angry. is that anger

going to be shared by the prime minister? yes, she did not look happy sitting on the front bench when all that was unfolding earlier, the fact the vote was even happening at all. so it‘s not what she wants, it‘s not what the government wants. as the government, they want as much room for manoeuvre as they can possibly have. every government wa nts possibly have. every government wants that. but the problem is she does not have a majority, and she does not have a majority, and she does have a very divided party, so that narrows her options. it now means that next tuesday, if her deal is defeated, she only has three days to come back with a plan b. as ever with these parliamentary amendments, there is a dispute about what it really means. does it really mean she has to come back, lay down a motion and say she will do something thatis motion and say she will do something that is quite vague? does it mean i have to —— does it mean they will have to —— does it mean they will have to —— does it mean they will have to be a vote on the same day. the mps who are trying to delay or

stop brexit or get a second referendum, they are interested in this, because they could put down amendments. there could be a series of votes on different options. there was also the possibility that was the route the government could go down anyway because it would show there is a clear understanding of what mps are against, but it is not at all clear what they are in favour of. that has always been a problem. and it has really been theresa may‘s strongest card. because her opponents are not rallying round one particular view. to that extent it is slightly helping her. it was clear talking to rory stewart that this is the only deal. we have heard that time and time again, it‘s the only deal in town. she is now in a cul—de—sac, isn‘t she? where does she go in those three days? going to the eu is the guest, but it‘s unlikely they will give anything to her. the point is if they were going to give anything at all then it would be after a defeat in the house

of commons. could do that quite quickly, if it is something you are considering because most people don‘t think she can get the deal through next tuesday, so it‘s something that both sides must have talked about. so in that sense may bea talked about. so in that sense may be a dust matter too much. but it means if she tries to bring the deal back a second time, she could still do that, but she can‘t do it in february. she has to do it earlier. so it limits the options for the government. but there is still no alternative. when i interviewed dominic grieve, he wants a second referendum and wants to stop brexit altogether, but he says there will have to be cross—party talks to find a way through. but what is he willing to compromise on? is he still willing to back some kind of deal if it is a different one? it is all very unclear. i think the argument today in the house of commons does reflect that. it shows mps trying to seize control of the process , mps trying to seize control of the process, but the question is, they don‘t know where they are taking it.

maybe they have got control of the process , maybe they have got control of the process, but who is in control and in the driving seat? that‘s unclear. quite a lot of anger directed at the speaker. there has been for years, that‘s not a new thing. conservative mps don‘t trust him. this is their biggest fear, some of the brexiteers. they feel he was in a strong position because a lot of these decisions are down to the speaker. his point today was, i make the decisions and actually they are not questioned. that is changing. his argument is that he is trying to give mpsa his argument is that he is trying to give mps a say on incredibly important issues, you could argue one of the most important issues this house has had to debate in decades, and he says he wants to make sure all voices are heard. as an mp you should want the speaker to be on your side. and it depends what argument you are trying to put forward. if you are the government then you don‘t want the rebels on your own site to have more of a say.

but his argument is, it‘s about parliament holding the government to account on very important decisions. i think what has angered people even more is the feeling that he has change the rules for the first time to suit a certain agenda, which is an anti—brexit agenda, so they are questioning his impartiality. vicki youngin questioning his impartiality. vicki young in the lobby at the house of commons, thank you. i‘mjoined by mp andrew bridgen, who i am guessing was pleased to see the amendment to go through. pleased to see it go through? i‘m a brexiteer. go through. pleased to see it go through? i'm a brexiteer. are you happier now than you were before given that there is a much clearer timetable? i was very disappointed at the speaker of the house of commons, now seeing himself as some sort of cromwell lord protector figure who is basically making up the rules of the house of commons as we go along. has he bent the rules or broken them? i wanted to ask a

point of order. but he curtailed them before he got to me. i wanted to ask him, as you set a precedent, as you did by your decision today, in your ruling of accepting the dominic grieve amendment, does that mean you are allowed to break house of commons standing orders unilaterally? which he effectively has done the. what he says that he hasn‘t. lets see the legal advice from his clerks. i believe it‘s the second time it has happened. the dominic grieve amendment, when it came forward a couple of weeks ago, i believe he went against the clerks‘ advice in accepting that amendment, which was out of scope at the time. what do you think was the motivation? i think the speaker is clearly playing to the cohort in the house of commons who want to stop brexit. that‘s where his support base is, and that‘s what he is relying on. these are serious allegations. the speaker was clearly frustrated with what was being

directed towards him. he said at one point, iam directed towards him. he said at one point, i am the speaker, i follow the procedure and if you don‘t like it, that‘s it. the procedure and if you don‘t like it, that's it. let's see, then why did he... he wouldn‘t deny that the advice he was given, his legal advice, as the standing orders of the house of the procedure, went in contrary to the decision he made. what he said was, i made that decision. let him publish the legal advice that he received, and he will have received that ,, whether it was oral or verbal or written. when it comes to it, isn‘t this a bit of frippery? we are seeing the speaker crossed the rubicon. there is no going back. he is clearly nailing his colours to an anti—brexit mast, as far as his colours to an anti—brexit mast, as farasi his colours to an anti—brexit mast, as far as i am concerned. it‘s a constitutional crisis and puts the democracy and our system at risk, while he remains in the chair. what do you want to happen?”

while he remains in the chair. what do you want to happen? i think the speaker should be removed. i would like to think there is a majority of mps in the house to remove him but i fear there isn‘t. one problem we have in the place behind you is that we have a parliament where most of the mps campaigned for remain. many of them have never accepted the democratic will of the british people, which we gave them by having the referendum. we are now in a position where our parliament is that conflict with the people. i don‘t believe it will end up well for our parliament. do you feel now that a no—deal brexit is much less likely? no, because all the legislation, and even the speaker had to concede to bill cash, an eminent brexiteer and experienced lawyer, that the law is currently passedis lawyer, that the law is currently passed is that we leave on march 29, and it will require legislation proposed and supported by the government to stop that happening. the deal will be voted on presumably next tuesday. i will vote against

it, and! next tuesday. i will vote against it, and i believe that deal will go down. we will not have an extension to article 50 or a second referendum. it will take over a year and be anti—democratic. the only option is we leave on a managed no deal on march 29. what is a managed no deal? agreements have been made with regard to airline flights. hopefully you will have heard the president of the port of calais this morning, he has blown away all the myths around project fear, about huge delays of cross—border transport, queueing at dover, because there will be no extra delays. if you are a farm in northern ireland, could you face ta riffs northern ireland, could you face tariffs as we been told? we can‘t negotiate the future relationship until we have left. we immediately go into talks for a free trade deal with the european union after march 29. under wto rules,

with the european union after march 29. underwto rules, it allows with the european union after march 29. under wto rules, it allows us to have ten years of tariff free and quota free trade. and i think that‘s a very generous offer. aren't you immediately putting the livelihoods of people at risk because that uncertainty, the tariff increases that would inevitably introduced while you are still in those discussions... to we would have tariff and quota free trade for up to ten years while we negotiate for a free trade agreement. basically, nothing will have changed. we will have no bilateral agreements on day one, will we? we will not have any deal with anybody. all the bilateral agreements we can have three free trade deals with the european union, they are all cut and paste straight for us. everybody is agreeing to those. we can leave on wto terms and have tariff and quota free trade with the eu, hugely in the interest given the huge trade surplus they

have with us if they accept it, and i think they will. as a brexiteer, do you have a fear that in the last few hours brexit has maybe moved a little further away? that perhaps another referendum is looking more likely? i don't think there is any appetite for another referendum. you would be talking about legislation and the rules around the referendum is probably a year from now before that could be achieved. we are leaving on march 29 at 11pm. that is the law passed by the house of commons and it will take primary legislation to stop that happening for i and many colleagues will be determined to not let that legislation pass and the mandate we have been given to leave the eu is from the will of the british people. does parliament have the power in its hands, could it in the next few days, get the power to stop a no—deal brexit? days, get the power to stop a no-deal brexit? no because primary legislation would require motions proposed by the government. as long

as the prime minister stands firm that we are leaving on the 29th march, as she has said many times, there will be no extension to article 50, and they will be no second referendum and we will leave the eu. that is what were told by the eu. that is what were told by the rich people and that is what we must do. andrew bridgen, thank you. we can rejoin the house of commons. andrew mitchell is on his feet putting questions. life after the referendum. you need look no further than to see what is said about this deal by the leading proponents and opponents of brexit on this side. consider the eloquent arguments put by my honourable friend for east surrey orpington and beaconsfield, and the equally eloquent and passionate arguments put by north east somerset, holton price and my right honourable friend for chingford and wood green. this to those arguments and you see is perpetuate deep divisions because suchis perpetuate deep divisions because such is the eloquent and well argued

arguments against the deal proposed. thirdly, all of this is before we start on the political declaration about which we have already heard some astute comments today. we will be out, we will have paid 39 billion and be saddled with the backstop. we can already see how difficult it is going to be to negotiate and agree the trade and commercial deals with the trade and commercial deals with the 27 european neighbours in the european union. we have heard what the french have said about fisheries, what the spanish said about gibraltar. what greece and cyprus have said about precedents set in terms of turkey. so alas, i cannot support it. so what is to be done. it seems to me that we almost certainly need more time. although i think the amendment we have passed today makes it clear that the house of commons expects the government to address these matters with great urgency. the former brexit secretary makes the good point that deals in

the european union are normally done up the european union are normally done up against the clock and i recognise the validity of that point. the much bigger role for parliament to take, that was set out by my two right honourable friend is is clearly extremely important. the government, asa extremely important. the government, as a servant of parliament, and not the other way round, needs to go back to brussels, paris and berlin and spell out clearly to our friends in the eu why the deal is unacceptable and in particular the response to the backstop. and to explain that if the commission persists in this vein it will sour relations between the european union and the uk for generations, to our huge mutual, mutual disadvantage. the government have rightly stepped up the government have rightly stepped up planning for no deal. but it seems to me, particularly given the will of the house on this matter that even talk of cliff edges and no deals seems unduly alarmist. it will

clearly be in everyone‘s interest for a whole series of deals and reparations to be put in place, no matter how temporary, at that point. we must use any extra time to look again at the available options. the shadowed brexit secretary talked about this. what are the pluses of norway and canada, what are these options, both deals the eu offered us options, both deals the eu offered us earlier. and clearly, no money thatis us earlier. and clearly, no money that is not legally, contractually do you should be handed over at this point. if the prime minister‘s deal is rejected, it will be for parliament to reach a conclusion on how to proceed. i profoundly hope that we can because if we are not able to do so, if this house cannot reach a resolution on these matters, the possibility of a further referendum will undoubtedly arise. something i believe profoundly would be most undesirable. firstly because

a large cohort of our constituents would feel a second referendum tramples on their democratic rights and is an attempt by a complacent establishment to make off with the referendum results. nor do i think the result would likely change in the result would likely change in the event of a second referendum. parliament should now seek to reach an agreement on how best to proceed. only if we find ourselves incapable of reaching any agreement should reconsider the option of going back to our constituents to seek their further guidance. stephen gethins. it feels like deja vu all over again. we seem to be back to where we started before christmas. as the male member for holborn and st pancras rightly pointed out, it seems nothing has changed. —— as the memberfor seems nothing has changed. —— as the member for holborn and st pancras. we hope we have a vote and we hope it is meaningful, so we can get on

with finding some solutions to the problems we have faced as a parliament. it has to be said, and i think the point has been made earlier on, that part of the problem formps, earlier on, that part of the problem for mps, businesses and others is that it for mps, businesses and others is thatitis for mps, businesses and others is that it is becoming increasingly difficult to believe anything the government tells us definitely will happen. you have to feel for those who have had to negotiate their way through this, and for the officials who have had to negotiate on behalf of the uk parliament. i sincerely hope michel barnier is enjoying his birthday today, and deservedly so after two and a half years of nebulous argument, as some might put it. minister got off lightly when jean—claude juncker referred to her as that, and i think he was trying to be helpful to the government. in these benches we cannot vote for a deal that will make us poorer, less secure, deal that will make us poorer, less secure, more deal that will make us poorer, less secure, more isolated, deliverworst public services and a worse future

for young people, depriving them of the rights and opportunities we have enjoyed and taken advantage of. at a time when we have the biggest crisis in modern times, with a week and unstable government that is clearly the most incompetent in living memory, it seems timely that the scream memory, it seems timely that the scream is coming to the uk soon. the government is spending money on food and medicine shortages because it has lost control of the situation in this place and beyond will stop every day that passes shows us what a disaster this is. the kind of disaster we have got, and it's entirely off the government's own making. a brexit mess that was left to them by grossly irresponsible brexiteers who have had a political lifetime to prepare for this moment. and when the moment came we found out how ill—prepared they actually were. out how ill—prepared they actually were. in many ways it wasn't but a disservice to cowboys and snake oil

salesmen about those who propose this in the first place. —— in many ways does an utter disservice. what kind of government actively pursues a policy that it knows, and its economic analysis shows will make us poorer? a hard brexit will cost £1600 for every person in scotland. we know that is for scotland because the scottish government has had the decency to produce its independent analysis, something the uk government pointedly has refused to do. and we know why they have refused. because they are deeply embarrassed by it, and so they should be. iwill give embarrassed by it, and so they should be. i will give way. embarrassed by it, and so they should be. i will give waylj embarrassed by it, and so they should be. iwill give way. iwould thank the honourable member are for giving way. there is a tendency for those who favour brexit to think, some of them think it would be good for us to tighten our belts and a little bit of reduced income is something we could get over. but i

represent the furthest away part of mainland britain. and if we have a hard, no—deal brexit, i will have businesses that will go bust. the owners will lose their livelihood and also all the people who work in those businesses. to take forward the honourable member‘s point, surely the ultimate role of government is to protect these people and to protect these businesses, because without enterprise, the little acorns from which mighty oaks grow, this country is going nowhere. i thank the honourable member for his point. he represents a rural constituency with many similarities to my own. he will be aware that the bank of england warned that crashing out would be worse than the 2008 crisis, and we know how devastating years of austerity have been for public services and household incomes. this was something that was found at the university of st andrews, small businesses will be particularly hard hit. he is right to make that point.

even the chancellor recognises that remaining in the union is better. so we are all, all the fuss, paying the penalty for the tories' folly and frankly, extremism, in this regard. the eu single market is the world's largest economic bloc with half a billion consumers. it's eight times bigger than the united kingdom, with ao% of scottish exports going there. it has become very, very expensive indeed to leave the eu. the question has to be asked, is it now unaffordable to remain in the united kingdom? other industries are going to be badly hit as well. education and research, the uk does well out of education and research. scotland does particularly well. since 2014,

we have no answers on what will happen next. scottish universities, and other research institutions have drawn down about half £1 billion, £500 million worth of eu funding. the uk has done particularly well with that competitively. in universities, some of which i represent and i see it daily. universities like st andrews, dundee, abertay, whose and research benefits from eu funding will benefits from eu funding will benefit each and everyone of us for years to come, before we even start up years to come, before we even start up on the financial benefits of that membership as well. and what from the uk government, what do we have in response for the biggest employer in my constituency? nothing. an abrogation of responsibility to people with small businesses, to people with small businesses, to people who work in research to make our lives better and work in health care? absolutely our lives better and work in health care ? absolutely nothing. our lives better and work in health care? absolutely nothing. and it goes for other industries as well.

the minister in his comments raised the food and drink sector. we shall leave stephen gethins of the snp as that debate continues. you can continue watching on bbc parliament. now it‘s time for a look at the weather. this is something we haven‘t seen much of this winter, snow. this isn‘t the uk but greece. we touched on this yesterday. this is near athens. there has been travel chaos, a number of roads close. last night in the mountains to the north, temperatures down to —18. there has been more snow across the higher ground. in athens, snow not that unusual at this time of year, on average four and a half snow days a year. in 91—92, 19 days of snow. that was a really bad winter. we have seen some of that snow melting after a few days where temperatures have been near freezing. after a few days where temperatures have been nearfreezing. it has been

much milder today. probably seeing the peak of the temperatures tomorrow, 17 degrees. a rapid thaw, that could lead to flooding and all because we are getting a southerly wind. a northerly returning over the weekend but this were not quite as cold. here in the uk, a cold start this morning. a frost in some areas, _4’ this morning. a frost in some areas, -a, -5. this morning. a frost in some areas, —a, —5. more cloud spilling down from the north—west at the moment. as we head into this evening, the clouds thickening up in scotland and will bring with it a little bit of rain and drizzle. still dry across southern scotland and we still have clearer skies across north—west england, although cloudy skies of northern ireland. clear skies for wales, the south—west, much of the midlands. temperatures will be dropping here to three or a degrees. still some showers potentially coming into some of those eastern parts of england. the northerly winds will ease and no showers or move away, the lal breaks up a while and this is the change as the cloud comes from the north—west. limiting the brass, more towards wales, the midlands and southern england for a

while but even here temperatures may lift towards the end of the night as the cloud begins to arrive. some early sunshine perhaps but the cloudy skies will push down from the north. a little rain or drizzle here or there, nothing much. then the cloud breaks up for northern ireland, northern england and scotland, so some sunny spells. shower stall the north—west. temperatures a little higher than today, may be double figures in northern ireland. it won‘t be as cold on thursday night. some sunny spells on friday, particularly for the eastern side of the uk. a bit more cloud coming into the west. not much rain at all. those temperatures are continuing to rise. noticeable for the southern half of the uk. as we head into the weekend, high pressure to the south—west of the uk, drawing on atlantic air. a very wea k uk, drawing on atlantic air. a very weak weather front, not much rain but windy north. a little rain or drizzle here

or there, nothing much. then the cloud breaks up the northern ireland, northern england and scotland, so some sunny spells. shower stall the north—west. temperatures a little higher than today, maybe double figures in northern ireland. it won‘t be as cold on thursday night. some sunny spells on friday, particularly for the eastern side of the uk. a bit more cloud coming into the west. not much rain at all. those temperatures are continuing to rise. noticeable for the southern myjob is not to be a cheerleader for the executive branch. myjob is to stand up for the rights of the house of commons. police are treating the fatal stabbing of a 1a—year—old boy who was knocked off a moped in east london as a targeted attack. he‘s been named locally as jayden moody. sport now on afternoon live with olly. tottenham‘s long awaited move to new stadium delayed further? and again and again, yes. spurs fans, their patience is wearing thin. they were supposed to be in towards the beginning of the season

in september that needed to do a complete rewire of their safety systems. there have been other problems as well. so wembley will be spurs‘s temporary home for at least another six weeks. they have confirmed that their new 62,000 seater stadium, which is on the site of the old white hart lane, won‘t be ready to move into until at least march. the club say that building tests need to be carried out and test events need to be organised. their next four home matches, including their champions league game against borussia dortmund next month, will take place at the national stadium. so would a potential fa cup fifth round tie — if spurs are drawn at home. i know spurs fans are sick to the back teeth of all of these delays. they keep getting refunds on their season ticket that they hoped would have given them a brilliant seat in

that new stadium. we are over halfway through the season now and it is still not ready. and i will be brilliant when i finish! of course. and i'm finished. tonight, the first leg of the semifinal in the league cup. burton albion‘s chance against manchester city? what are the chances of that lot behind you in the building of reaching an amicable agreement on brexit? those kinds of chances, i think we are talking. spurs beat chelsea at wembley last night in the first leg of their league cup semifinal, tonight sees the other semi and it could be a bit one—sided. league one burton albion will face manchester city in what will be their first competitive meeting. city beat championship side rotherham 7—0 in the fa cup a few days ago, so how does the burton manager think his side will get on? quite daunting, in lots of ways, but

something i think everybody is going to enjoy. you couldn't get a bigger contrast in football between... occasionally the third round of the fa cup throws up something that you couldn't get a bigger contrast between two clubs. nigel clough a league cup winner twice at nottingham forest. they were unbeaten in the competition for two and a half years on that side. some other sports news for you: the former hull kr centre thomas minns has been given a 16—month ban after testing positive for cocaine last march. the 2a—year—old failed the test after a game and was released by the club injuly. he admitted taking the drug, which he said came at a time shortly after his mother had died. the suspension is backdated and he‘ll be free to play again injuly. (pres) the first tennis grand slam of the year starts next monday. the draw for the australian open takes place tomorrow in melbourne. andy murray is unseeded so could face a really tough

first round opponent. perhaps, in anticipation of that he‘s playing a practice match tomorrow against the world number one, novak djokovic. murray has lost four of his five australian open finals to the serb. he also lost to roger federer. the match will take place on the margaret court arena and will be open to the public. for nothing! world no.1 simona halep could do with some practice. she has just returned from a back injury and her first match in over three months ended in defeat. the romanian was beaten in straight sets by the world number 15, ashleigh barty. halep, who is the reigning french open champion and also the runner up at last year‘s australian open, and is currently without a coach. it was the biggest win of barty‘s career. it‘s a a big year for england cricket, they head to the west indies this week, but they‘ll host the world cup this summer before the ashes series that starts in august. the ecb‘s new director

of cricket ashley giles, who has taken over from andrew strauss, believes england can win the world cup. this year creates probably the best opportunity for a long time. how we are playing our cricket. i think we have found ourselves in the past running into world cups with suddenly a bit of a meltdown going on and change. that is not the case this time round. if you talk about my role again, as much as anything, that train is moving quickly along the tracks for the world cup and i need to make sure that down the line it‘s clear and there is no interference which will derail us. sounds like he should be working for network rail rather than the ecb! that is all the sport for now, more in the next hour. thank you very much. the prime minister has suffered another commons defeat in her plans for brexit. mps have said she has to come back in three days if her deal

is rejected when voted on next tuesday. it was backed by 308 mps to 297. mp5 tuesday. it was backed by 308 mps to 297. mps have become anotherfive days of debate on the prime minister‘s brexit deal. what will they be weighing up and what is at sta ke ? they be weighing up and what is at stake? chris morris has this assessment. so, in downing street, they‘re trying to figure out the numbers in the house of commons, to work out whether they have any hope of getting this vote passed. but, don‘t forget, amidst all this political drama, it‘s the documents that have been negotiated behind closed doors that are at the heart of the debate. so, we‘ve come into the cabinet room for a reminder of what mps are talking about and eventually voting on, with the credibility of the prime minister and her brexit plan very much at stake. first of all, the withdrawal agreement itself. this is the legally binding document that will take the uk out of the eu. it includes the financial settlement, or divorce bill, that the uk will pay — an estimated £39 billion. it also sets out basic rights for uk citizens elsewhere in the eu,

and eu citizens here in the uk. and the terms of a transition period, of at least 21 months after brexit, when all the rules would stay the same. but most controversial of all, there‘s the protocol on ireland and northern ireland, including the backstop plan, for keeping the irish border as open as it is now — under all circumstances. the backstop would only come into effect at the end of a post brexit transition period, if a future trade agreement to avoid a hard border hasn‘t been achieved. the prime minister has been given additional reassurances from the eu that the backstop would only ever be temporary and that no one actually wants it to come into effect. but it still exists in the treaty and there is no unilateral way for the uk to get out of it without the eu‘s agreement. there‘s also a non—binding political declaration on the future relationship between the uk and the eu. the wording here is so vague that it doesn‘t offer any guarantee of any particular outcome.

so, the government‘s facing an uphill battle to get this vote passed, and it will properly have to ask mps to vote more than once, maybe after getting even more reassurance from brussels. and after that, well, if the vote goes through, the withdrawal agreement then needs to be turned into uk law, through new legislation. it also needs to be given the green light by the european parliament. and if all that happens in time, the uk will leave the eu on the 29th march. but if the government is defeated, well, the default position is that the uk would still leave but with no deal. or mps could try and come up with an alternative plan for leaving, a relationship more like norway‘s, for example, which is still in the single market. or we might be looking at a new prime minister, a new election or even another referendum, which could mean no brexit at all. the truth is, no one can say for sure what‘s likely to happen over the next three months. this street has seen its fair share of drama in the past, but nothing quite like this.

in the house of commons chamber right now, that debate continues. the snp leader on his feet. just wa nt to the snp leader on his feet. just want to tell you what has been going on, the prime minister‘s official spokesman, some suggesting it is the first time they have actually talked about what would happen if theresa may does in fact lose the vote next tuesday. they are quoted as saying, our intention has always been to respond quickly and provide certainty on the way forward. in the event that we lose, that meaningful vote, that is what we will do. of course, their hand rather forced by that amendment decision vote today, which gives the prime minister three days if she loses next tuesday, she has three days to come up with what is effectively a plan b. a plan b we know she simply at this stage does not have. plenty

more from westminster throughout the evening here on bbc news but let‘s move on to other news on afternoon live now. detectives say a 1a—year—old boy, who was stabbed to death in east london last night, was the victim of a targeted attack‘. he‘s been named locally as jayden moody. officers believe a car knocked the boy off a moped in waltham forest, before a group of men got out and killed him. they say the attack ‘beggars belief‘. ashley—john baptiste reports. the latest victim of a stabbing in the capital, a 1a—year—old boy locally named as jayden moody, stabbed to death after being knocked off his moped. he died at the scene after being found by officers in the early evening yesterday. the metropolitan police say they are looking for a black mercedes b—class with extensive frontal damage after three men got out of the car and stabbed a 1a—year—old in waltham forest. they believe this was a targeted attack. what were the drivers for this

incident? the motivations that lead three men in a car to do this act? somebody out there knows who has done this. the right thing is to give them up and work with us to try and make east london safer. the latest victim is one of the youngest people to die in london‘s streets in the last year. the victim because my pa rents were the last year. the victim because my parents were here last night being comforted by police. it comes after killings in their capital reach their highest levels for a decade in 2018. we tell our kids to be safe, where you... where your friends are. but we never know what happens, because it wasn‘t very late, it‘s the time that normally my sons are out, and it‘s scary. it's so sad. and the kid is a good kid, man. he's not. you know what the problem is, he's not one of those... you know one of those same, crazy kids. he's not one of them kids. he's a clued—on kid. that's the worst thing, he's not like... and even if he had some problems, he'd always watch his back and stuff. he's a little kid, he's a little, little, kid, man. london mayor, sadig khan

tweeted to say... 132 people were killed in london last year. the majority down to knife crime. the metropolitan police say they are committed to tackling those who choose to be violent. ashleyjohn—baptiste, bbc news. we will have all the business news ina we will have all the business news in a moment but first, our headlines on afternoon live. the government suffers another brexit defeat, as mps approve an amendment which forces theresa may to bring new plans to parliament within three days if she loses the vote on her eu withdrawal deal. house of commons speakerjohn bercow is attacked by senior brexiteers for allowing the amendment to be voted on. police are treating the fatal stabbing of a 1a year old boy

who was knocked off a moped in east london as a targeted attack. he‘s been named locally as jayden moody. here‘s your business headlines on afternoon live. seaborne freight, the firm with the government contract to run ferries between ramsgate and ostend has insisted it will be ready by the time the uk leaves the eu. the department for transport said it had confidence in the deliverability of the service. the assurances come after the mayor of ostend told the bbc the belgian port would not be ready for a new ferry line in time for brexit. sainsbury‘s has seen sales fall over christmas after non—food trading was hit by consumer caution. like—for—like retail sales, which exclude new stores, fell by 1.1% across the christmas period. japan has announced that it will lift the ban on british beef that has been in place since 1996. the decision has been announced before a visit to the uk by japan‘s prime minister shinzo abe this week. it‘s that time of year when we find out what presents came in the form

of christmas sales on the high street, and there hasn‘t been much post christmas cheer for sainsburys. the retailer which also owns argos has reported a drop in overall sales. like—for—like retail sales, which exclude sales from new stores, fell by 1.1% across the christmas period. general merchandise sales, including at argos, fell by 2.3% and overall clothing sales by 0.2%. grocery sales were up 0.a%, amid tough competition from discount stores, of course. but it was a very merry christmas for bakery chain greggs, which has reported a 7.2% rise in total sales for 2018. greggs saw growth in hot drinks and breakfasts, and strong sales in freshly—baked mince pies, and it also mentioned the huge social media impact of its vegan sausage roll launch in early january. let‘s get the financial markets perspective on these figures, with jeremy stretch from cibc capital markets first. hello. let‘s talk about sainsbury‘s.

it shows how tough the non—food sector is at the moment, doesn‘t it? indeed it does. i think you need to differentiate between those important parts of their business. the grocery part was ok, not as bad as the headlines are suggesting that it is clearly the case there were a lot of discounts on offer, in terms of the fourth quarter. sainsbury‘s, via their argos arm perhaps trying to step away from those aggressive promotional discounts to preserve their margins but that came at the expense of overall sales volumes. very much the case of a business decision but underlines the difficulties that high street retailers continue to face. it does and there is tough competition with the discount retailers aldi and lidl. do you think all these numbers, these latest numbers will play into that merger with asda that sainsbury‘s is still going for? play into that merger with asda that sainsbury's is still going for?m very much the case that sainsbury‘s are looking to try and reduce their

cost and make it more competitive, vis—a—vis those discounted operators and is still the case that in the retail space where people are looking for value, there is an opportunity, or there has been a desire to trade down or looking at alternative plans. in a sense, the sainsbury‘s merger is still a function of the need to try and compete with these low—cost competitors. so that is the story we will be watching. let‘s now talk about greggs. not sure if you have tried the vegan sausage roll but it seems plenty of appetite for greggs products last year and posted impressive numbers? indeed it did. clearly when you have some of those taste tests, in terms of mince pies in the festive period, then the company does relatively well. but it seems they have broadened out their product specialties. these vegan sausage rolls. it does seem to be

the case that piers morgan‘s comments whether they were bad or otherwise have added to the news story or newsworthiness of this particular product. so that has added to the momentum behind their sales and is providing a positive tailwind for the company as we start the year. absolutely. finally, ted baker. it had some very impressive numbers over christmas, despite the role elsewhere in the high street, particular for clothing firms and despite an investigation into its founder? yes, the news flow in the last few months has not been particularly encouraging, but in the terms of the products it sells, it seems they have been continuing to make the right sort of product decisions, which have been vindicated by the consumer continuing to by the products in the festive period. this is an enormously important period for all retailers so it needs to be the case that the products where the right ones. they continued to entice customers, particularly in their online offerings, which moves from

strength to strength and that is more than offset the negative headlines we have seen from the company executive. 0k, many thanks for that update today. another story we are following today is the ban on cold calling about pensions which has come into force. cold—calling has been used by fraudsters trying to steal life savings or persuade people to invest in high—risk schemes. some 10.9 million unsolicited pension calls and messages are made a year, according to citizens advice. any firm found flouting the rules faces a fine of up to £500,000, but experts suggest fraudsters may ignore the ban which means people should still be wary about such calls. for more on this lets talk to claire walsh, personal finance director at shroeders. hello. just how serious is cold calling on pensions? it is very serious. the money advice service, it estimates that there are eight scam calls a second. in 2017, action

fraud recorded pension fraud victims collectively lost 23 million, which averaged £91,000 per person. these are huge sums of money people are losing the stop the problem is, a lot of people don‘t know what to look for. when you say don't know what to look for, what should they be on their guard against? although this ban has come into force, do you expect these types of calls will still be made? i think the thing with the ban is it‘s really about what i think we should take is good news is about raising public awareness. if you get any sort of cold call, i would be wary of any cold call, i would be wary of any cold call, i would be wary of any cold call but anything to do with your finances, that is cold call but anything to do with yourfinances, that is illegal cold call but anything to do with your finances, that is illegal now. you shouldn‘t be taking that call. if you get that call, just put down the phone would be my advice. often, they will use kind of language promising things like high guaranteed returns and generally, if something sounds too good to be true, it probably is. regulated firms cannot make cold calls. you

will not have a proper financial company cold calling people in their homes. what people need to be looking for is looking for companies that are regulated by the financial conduct authority. this ban was proposed two years ago, why has it taken so long? pasta i think that‘s just the wheels of change of government. various things were announced and then it was on hold. we all know the b word that has taken over legislation we all know the b word that has ta ken over legislation in we all know the b word that has taken over legislation in this country. i think it‘s really good news is finally coming in and i think it is good news we get that message out there, that people shouldn‘t be persuaded by scammers phoning them up. i think with pensions, in particular, they tend to target older people who may often be at home a lot and they may be quite lonely and it‘s quite nice to get a phone call and if somebody sounds pathetic and giving you lots of things to talk about, it can be quite easy. as i said, i think pensions and finance generally are

quite a confusing area. people don‘t know what they should be looking for. but what you do need to be looking for is checking the firm is authorised and regulated by the financial conduct authority. you can go to the website, the fca, and look up go to the website, the fca, and look up the firm and individual‘s details. and very finally, if people do think they may have been scammed, where should they go for help? the fca is a good place to go. also action fraud, which i mentioned. i would always encourage people to register their telephone number with the telephone preference service, which should prevent other sorts of calls as well. 0k, claire walsh, thank you. time now to check in with the latest on the financial markets now. the ftse 100 on the financial markets now. the ftse100 ended in positive territory. very positive trading

update from taylor wimpey. up over 8% upon use the two largest economies might resolve their trade war. we have had a statement out today with much more positive comments from trade representatives. so asa comments from trade representatives. so as a result, brent crude futures up so as a result, brent crude futures up around 2.5% today. that more positive outlook about global trade has offset concerns about the continuing us government shutdown. quite a few agencies right across the us are still closed. thousands of federal employees are not being paid and that is causing concern. there has been warnings of potentially a credit downgrade of the us. that has come from the ratings agency fitch today. but because we have had those trade figures out from china and beijing, slightly more optimistic figures on

a trading perspective that some agreement will be reached between us and china. that has lifted the dow jones somewhat as you can see. that is all the business news from me for now. now let‘s try and get an update on the weather. everyone will be wanting to know what‘s happening. some updates later on what‘s going on in parliament with the developments over brexit. but we can go to darren bent with all of the weather. hello. today the coldest day of this week. another thrust in places overnight tonight but it won‘t be as cold in scotland. more cloud here spilling its way slowly southwards, the northerly breeze easing. the lowest temperatures, where we have clearer skies, more across the southern half of the uk, down to —3 or —a in rural areas. not as cold as

last night in scotland because more cloud. a bit of rain and drizzle coming from the cloud, which will sink southwards into the southern half of the uk later in the morning on thursday afternoon. cloud breaking up for the northern ireland, scotland and northern england. a view showers towards the north—west. temperature is a shade higher than we have seen today. friday see some sunny spells, a lot of dry weather continuing. into the weekend, some rain, not a great deal, most in the north west. some sunshine at times but some stronger wins this weekend. more of a north—westerly wind, so it should stay on the mild side. today at 5pm — we‘re live the at westminster, where mps have inflicted another defeat on the government at a decisive moment in the brexit process. mps voted to give

theresa mayjust three days to come up with a new brexit plan, if the current one is defeated next week, but the prime minister had already said her deal was the only realistic one. the only way to avoid no—deal is vote for the deal. isn't the prime minister bringing back exactly the same deal she admitted would be defeated four weeks ago? this is the scene in the house of commons now — where mps have started five days of debate on theresa may‘s plans, leading to the big vote next tuesday. we‘ll have all the latest from westminster.