ncrr—ncu— “a it we. recall firmly served together in the cabinet of the coalition government, that government was furry enthusiastic about the prospect of negotiating eu trade deals with important trading partners round the world. including the prospect of a trade deal with japan. on the ist of february, the japan deal was concluded. and it is in fact, i think, a deal which covers a bigger proportion of the global economy than any other trade deal negotiated so than any other trade deal negotiated so far. does the prime minister seek a customs arrangement which enables us to us to continue to enjoy or begin to us to continue to enjoy or begin to get the benefits of this important deal, after the 29th of march, or is she insisting that we have got to leave it and have our own trade policy, and begin our own negotiations with a country that actually has a very much bigger

economy than our own, and is likely to demand from the united kingdom concessions which it was not able to demand from the european union?|j say demand from the european union?” say to my right honourable... can i say to my right honourable... can i say to my right honourable and learn ata say to my right honourable and learn at a friend, of course he is absolutely right that it is on the ist of february that the epa with japan came into force. prior to that we had been trading with japan on wto organisations. in relation to the trade deals which have been agreed between the eu and countries around the world, we see continuity in those agreements at the point of which we leave the eu. we've also been working to see continuity where we to leave with no deal. but we also want to ensure that we can enhance our trade arrangements with a number of countries around the world. and so then build our own trade agreements with those countries. i think that's the best

and most sensible approach, to maintain trading relations as they are, as we leave the eu, and then build and enhance those trading relationships with our own independent trade agreements. sometimes i think the prime minister must live in a parallel universe. we have just heard from the prime minister that she wanted this concluded in december. mr speaker, talk about rewriting history. it was the prime minister that denied us the prime minister that denied us the right to have the meaningful vote and to try and rewrite history, and she sits there laughing. sometimes you should be honest with yourself, never mind being honest with the people of the uk. mr speaker, here we are once again, a statement from the prime minister who is lost in a brexit fantasy. we are 45 days from scotland being dragged out of the eu against our will. 45 days from economic

catastrophe. she talks about japan. goods that could be leaving japan in the next few days would arise after we leave the union. we do not know what the tariff regime would be from those imported cars, and whatever else. the ongoing mess of this government never ceases to amaze. will the prime minister understand that eu leaders have refused to budge on any changes to the withdrawal agreement? donald tusk said on the 6th of february the eu isn't making any other offer. what, from that statement, does the prime minister not understand? why does the prime minister not understand of this, the eu will not open the withdrawal agreement that she signed up withdrawal agreement that she signed ? withdrawal agreement that she signed up to? does the prime minister realised the danger of running down

the clock? 45 days to go and here we are, a government that cannot even deliver a very contract. your response to my letter, requesting sight of what economic analysis i have done on your own deal poses more questions than answers. —— cannot even deliver a ferry contract. have you done an economic assessment of the impact of your deal on the uk economy? a simple yes or no. prime minister, you are asking your house to vote on your deal, and you cannot even be honest about the economic impacts. you expect us to vote on this, your binary choice is frankly laughable. a calling for an extension to article 50... prime minister, extend article 50... prime minister, extend article 50... prime minister, extend article 50 today. mr speaker, the prime minister's deal is a fraud. ending freedom of movement. leaving the biggest trading bloc in the world. this will be catastrophic for scotland. the uk is already

suffering the cost of brexit. will the prime minister put an end of this economic madness? as students get set for university applications, and business owners look to prepare for the new financial year, your government is causing a new wave of uncertainty. we come on these benches, refuse to accept scotland being dragged out of the eu against our will. ultimately, scotland being dragged out of the eu against ourwill. ultimately, scotland will have a choice. an independent european nation, or remaining part ofan inward european nation, or remaining part of an inward —looking uk. scotland's voices must be respected, prime minister. i say to the right honourable gentleman, i think the points he made were the same point he has been making in response to my statements, regardless of the content of my state m e nts regardless of the content of my statements for some time now. he talked about the economic analysis, we talked about the economic analysis, we did publish an economic analysis of the proposals the government had put forward. that's not true! order,

there is plenty of scope for disagreement about what is and isn't true. in fairness, i repeat the point that the person who has the floor must be heard. prime minister... thank you. can i say to the right honourable gentleman that i think the right honourable gentleman that ithink in the right honourable gentleman that i think in his intervention from a sedentary position he may have inadvertently misled the house on this matter. no! no! oh! order, forgive me, i didn't hear... i didn't hear what was said... i hope... i hope the word alaia wasn't used. order! order! —— i hope the word liar wasn't used. if that word was used without equivocation or

qualification, that word must be withdrawn at once! at once! order! ifa memberon withdrawn at once! at once! order! if a member on the front bench use that word, i am sorry i am not debating it, i'm not negotiating, i'm not arguing, that word must be withdrawn. at once! who was the person that used the word? order! i'm advised, i admit i did not see which member used it, i'm advised, i think on good authority, that that word was used by the leader of the snp. iwant word was used by the leader of the snp. i want the debate to continue and it will. i civilly ask the right honourable gentleman to withdraw that word. he cannot accuse another memberof that word. he cannot accuse another member of this house of dishonesty, withdrawal. —— member of this house of dishonesty, withdrawal. — — i member of this house of dishonesty, withdrawal. —— i simply ask. there are plenty of precedents for that, i

rememberdoing it are plenty of precedents for that, i remember doing it myself. a member of the shadow cabinet did it from we st of the shadow cabinet did it from west bromwich out of deference to the chair, rather than the person he had been attacking. that's enough. ifi had been attacking. that's enough. if i could continue my explanation to the right honourable gentleman. asi to the right honourable gentleman. as i said, the government put forward an economic analysis of the deal that the government had put forward. we did that in the economic analysis that was published earlier before the withdrawal agreement was put towards the house. we also recognise that the political declaration had areas within it which had not yet been confirmed, and there were variations in relation to the friction from across the border which would come from that, and we could have taken a very low variation, which would be close to the government's deal on the economic analysis. we took a midpoint. that was entirely fair for the government to do. an economic analysis of the deal the government had put forward showed that if you

were going to honour the referendum the deal that actually delivered best for the british economy was the deal the government had put forward. the right honourable gentleman also talks about putting an end to the current situation. as i have indicated, we can indeed move forward when we agree a deal across this house. if the right honourable gentleman is so concerned about avoiding no deal i assume that when avoiding no deal i assume that when a deal is brought back from the european union this next time then he and his members of the snp in this house will be voting for a deal in order to support the future of the united kingdom. once again, the right honourable gentleman talks about the... economic impact on scotla nd about the... economic impact on scotland of leaving the eu, and talks are virtually in the same breath about his view that scotland should be independent for the —— from the uk. and it may raise cheers on the benches, but it would not raise cheers from those in scotland whose future depends on being a

member of the uk. order! of course there is enormous interest. as per usual i want to accommodate it. can ijust appeal to usual i want to accommodate it. can i just appeal to colleagues usual i want to accommodate it. can ijust appeal to colleagues at this time, with the country watching us, let's have a robust but respectful debate. it is perfectly possible for colleagues to make their points with considerable force, but to do so with courtesy. i know they will be led by a former party leader and a notably courteous member, mr iain duncan smith. she referred during her statement to the successful amendment by my right honourable friend, the member of washington and sail west, the passage was heavily based on the figure that has become as the malthouse compromise. —— altrincham and sayle west. for the

importance of doubt, can she now confirmed, therefore, that this proposal forms part of government policy? i say to my right honourable friend, because he has been involved in these meetings which have taken place with the secretary of state for exiting the eu, looking at the proposals that have come to be known as the malthouse compromise. there have been a number of alternative arrangements which have been proposed over the past months. the possibility of alternative arrangements to replace the backstop is recognised by both the uk and the eu by the declaration agreed in november. the proposals that have been tabled, there are some issues, there are some questions about the proposals that have been tabled. i raised the issue of alternative arrangements with the european commission and the european council, and the european parliament when i was there last week. my right honourable friend was able to discuss these issues with michel

barnier yesterday, but as i set out in my previous statement to the house, i think there are what people wa nt to house, i think there are what people want to see across this house, to ensure the backstop, as it currently exists, cannot become a permanent arrangement into which the united kingdom could find itself. there are various ways of dealing with that, asi various ways of dealing with that, as i set out in my previous statement, one is to replace that backstop completely with alternative arrangements, another is to ensure that the backstop can never be temporary. those are the issues which have been discussed. i've laid parliament's views very clearly on this to the eu. servants in cable. now that the prime minister has reached up to the general secretary of the unite union and the leader of the opposition and his entourage, she is no doubt better informed as to how trotsky might have dealt with the brexit crisis. —— sir vince cable. can she elaborate a little

more on her discussions with the general secretary of the trade union congress, and its affiliated members, and also the official brexit spokesman of the labour party, who have made it very clear that the best way to protect workers' rights is to give workers a say on the final deal, the option of remaining in the eu, and keeping the workers' rights they already have. the issues i have discussed, both were trade union leaders, the secretary general of the tuc, and with members across this house, is a concern to ensure that there is no reduction in workers' rights across the uk. a commitment this government has given and will continue to meet. nicky morgan. i agree with the prime minister and have done for many months that the best way to avoid a no deal outcome to brexit is to have a deal put in place. that's why i have been

pleased at the request of the prime minister to work as part of the alternative arrangements working group. isn't it now clear that to get that agreement through the house, those alternative arrangements, are going to have to command the confidence of a majority of members on the side of the house, and our confidence to supply members, and some labour mps. and our confidence to supply members, and some labour mp5. the tenure of the leader of the opposition's response shows that, u nfortu nately, opposition's response shows that, unfortunately, working on a cross— party unfortunately, working on a cross—party basis is unlikely to invoke an agreement, and certainly not continue to vote for the necessary legislation. that's the reality, isn't it, of the parliamentary arithmetic?” reality, isn't it, of the parliamentary arithmetic? i would like to thank my honourable friend of the work she has been doing on theissue of the work she has been doing on the issue of the alternative arrangements. i want to see a deal that can get through the house supported by all members of my own party, and my confidence and supply partners. it is actually, i think, in the interests of this parliament, and in the interest of taking legislation forward, that we see a

strong vote from across the house in relation to this issue. as my right honourable friend has said, the tenure, the tone of the response by the leader of the opposition did not give much encouragement in relation to that issue, but we will continue to that issue, but we will continue to talk with the labour party front bench. the brexit secretary will be meeting, along with the ministerial team, leaders of the opposition team to ta ke team, leaders of the opposition team to take forward those discussions and to explore the issues that the labour party wish to raise. hilary benn. whilst strength in pursuit of a principle is to be admired, influx ability and denial in the face of the facts is not, especially when the facts is not, especially when the future of the country is at sta ke. the future of the country is at stake. alternative arrangements for the northern ireland border were examined extensively last summer and

we re examined extensively last summer and were found wanting. the eu has made it clear that it will not reopen the withdrawal agreement. the fact is that the rolling over of the trade deals that the father of the house referred to isn't going well. the fa ct referred to isn't going well. the fact is that businesses are spending millions of pounds, and pulling their hair out, because they fear their hair out, because they fear the prospect of a no—deal brexit on the prospect of a no—deal brexit on the 29th of march. i don't believe the 29th of march. i don't believe the prime minister would do that to our country. she will! i don't think ministers would allow her to do it, so why did she continue to pretend that she might? i have consistently said, i made the point in my statement this afternoon, that's what i want, that what the government wants, is a deal with the eu, but there is only one way to ensure that we avoid no deal. i know i say it ensure that we avoid no deal. i know isay ita ensure that we avoid no deal. i know i say it a lot. i know right honourable members shout out at it, and so forth, but if you don't want

no deal you have to agree a deal. sir william cash. my right honourable friend is facing intransigence, both from the undemocratic eu, and from mps who voted for the referendum at the notification of withdrawal act and the withdrawal act itself and the repeal of the 1972 act. and are now trying to reverse this with their own trying to reverse this with their own votes. she has not signed the withdrawal agreement, which itself has undemocratic and unconstitutional features, including the backstop, and article four, which removes control over our lawmaking. we'll see therefore, if this undemocratic intransigence continues, walk away from the negotiations? obviously what we are doing now is working with the european union to achieve what this parliament has said it wants to see achieved, notably legally binding changes that ensure that the issues being raised have been dealt by this

parliament with regards to the backstop. i continue to work on these points. my honourable friend made an important point at the beginning of his intervention, that members of this house overwhelmingly voted for a referendum. it was clear at the time this house would respect the result of the referendum. the government at the time said that. this house overwhelmingly voted to trigger article 50. article 50 had a two year timeline to it, which ends on the 29th of march, and this house voted for it. at every stage this house has been willing to put in place the result of the referendum. what the house now needs to do is agree a deal so we can leave on the 29th of march and progress onto the next stage of negotiations and progress onto a brighter future. yvette cooper. the country's counter terror chief said no deal would be a serious flaw in our security arrangements. the police chief in charge of preparing for brexit has said that

no deal would leave us less safe. she and! no deal would leave us less safe. she and i have always previously agreed on the importance of not undermining our national security or undermining our national security or undermining public safety. but she knows that her continued delays have increased the risks of no deal on the 29th of march. if she has failed by the middle of march to persuade this house to back a deal, is she still ruling out extending article 50, yes or no? can i say to the right honourable lady, the extension of article 50 is not something which solves the problem. if you... the only way to solve a problem of not having no deal is to agree a deal. the right honourable lady says it is my delays that have caused the position we are in. we are in this position we are in. we are in this position because, yes, i negotiated a deal with the eu, i put it back to the house of commons, the house of

commons, including members of her side of the house, rejected that deal. we are now working to address theissue deal. we are now working to address the issue which has been raised by the issue which has been raised by the house of commons in the positive vote the house of commons gave on the 29th of january, which ensured that it was clear that the changes that it was clear that the changes that were necessary, and that those changes were agreed in order to make a deal. we are all aware that time is racing away, which is why many members say we need to extend article 50. we also need time for the necessary legislation. can the prime minister confirmed that there is not one planned for next week when some mps may be a way, which would commit us to zero tariffs in the event of no deal. this would decimate our agriculture and food industries and start a race to the bottom. such a significant decision would have far—reaching consequences and would demand full parliamentary scrutiny. there will be a number of statutory

instruments this house will be addressing and they will be working ha rd addressing and they will be working hard on those brexit arrangements next week. on the issue of tariffs in the event of a no deal, discussions are being undertaken by other businesses and other sectors. ed miliband. further to that question, can the prime minister now give millions of people and businesses up and down the country a simple answer to this straight question, if she is faced with a choice of leaving the european union without a deal on the 29th of march, or seeking an extension of article 50, what will she do? we deserve to know the answer to that question.” would say to the right honourable gentleman, what i am doing is working to ensure that we can bring a deal back to this house. it will then be for the right honourable gentleman and other than some of this house to determine whether they wa nt to this house to determine whether they want to support a deal with the european union. —— other members of this house. the leader of the opposition and the

leader of the liberal party both implicitly criticised the uk government's record on workers' rights, by comparison to europe. both ignoring the most fundamental right, safety in the workplace, which we have had the best record in europe since wejoined, which we have had the best record in europe since we joined, and every year since. there is little fear in this area. given that, can she guarantee to the house that any future changes to this area will be subject to the control of this house? very important point about the good record this country has in relation to workers' rights. i can confirm that i believe this is an area where we should not be automatically following what happens in europe, but actually we should be making those decisions. i believe it's important that we, in this country, in this house, those decisions. on our record of actually going further and having better workers' rights than other areas of the eu, i think that makes sense. mr

nigel dodds. the prime minister referenced the fact that there are concerns in northern ireland about maintaining a seamless border between the irish republic and northern ireland, but she should also talk about the great concern among many in northern ireland about creating new barriers between northern ireland and the rest of the uk. given we trade more with the rest of the uk than the irish republic, the rest of the eu, and the rest of the world put together. given that neither are necessary or needed under any scenario, can the prime minister confirmed that given that she knows what is needed, and the rest of the house knows what is needed to pass the withdrawal agreement, that the stance taken by leo varadkar when we met in belfast on friday in a cordial meeting, that the stance being taken by him and others could lead to the very outcome they say they wish to avoid. the right honourable gentleman is absolutely right in relation to concerns that have been expressed

about the relationship between northern ireland and great britain in trading, and the issue of potential regulatory barriers there, it is an issue we have both discussed on a number of occasions. he is also right, we talk about what it takes in this house to ensure that we agree a deal, but that deal needs to be agreed with the eu, of course, and that means that all members of the eu 27 have to agree that deal. i was able to have cordial and constructive talks with the tea shop on friday, is the right honourable gentleman has referenced his own talks, and i hope and trust andi his own talks, and i hope and trust and i do believe that all sitting around the table wants to ensure that we deliver a deal that delivers on the commitments of the people of northern ireland, can be passed on this house, to be agreed by the eu. —— the taoiseach. this house, to be agreed by the eu. -- the taoiseach. can she confirm that there is no point in having a

time limit on the backstop, unless thatis time limit on the backstop, unless that is written into the treaty itself, and, secondly, the end date is substantially before the next general election. cani general election. can i reassure my right honourable friend that i think, as he already knows, i want to see the future relationship coming into place by the beginning of 2021, well in advance of the next general election. the other point you made is absolutely the point i have been making to the european union, that one of the concerns of this house was that any assurances given in relation to the temporary nature of the backstop in early january were not of the same legal form of the international treaty which forms the withdrawal agreement. that's why what we are asking for is legally binding status to these, and the obvious way to do that is within the withdrawal agreement. rachel reeves. cani withdrawal agreement. rachel reeves. can i say to the right honourable gentleman, the humiliation this country is facing is losing jobs and

investment. that's what we should be focusing on. the business secretary told our select committee last week that this friday, the 15th of february, is the deadline for getting a dealfor february, is the deadline for getting a deal for businesses who export to the far east, as it shipments take six weeks to arrive. does the prime minister agree and guarantee that those agreements we enjoy today will still exist when those goods arrive on the 29th of march? can i say to the honourable lady that we are very well aware of the timetables businesses are working to. that's why we have been pressing and working hard to get the deal agreed by this house and the european union. it is also the case we are working on those trade agreements in a number —— and a number of continuity agreements have been signed with trading nations around the world to make sure we can continue to trade on the current arrangements. dominic grieve. i welcome the categorical assurance

that my right honourable friend has given to the house in respect of the house's ability to update a neutral motion on wednesday the 27th of february. but time is very short. can the prime minister explained to the house how we are going to comply with the provisions of the constitutional reform and governance act section 20, if there is a deal, how we are going to implement the withdrawal agreement implementation bill, and still leave on the 29th of march? isn't it the case that looked at realistically there is going to have to be an application to extend the article 50 process. even if my right honourable friend is successful in getting some kind of agreement through this house. cani agreement through this house. can i say to my right honourable and learned friend, he said the withdrawal act 2018 does make clear that provisions of constitutional

reform and governance act 2010, which require the withdrawal agreement to be laid for 21 sitting days before parliament, in most circumstances that period is may be important in order for this circumstances that period is may be important in orderfor this house circumstances that period is may be important in order for this house to have an opportunity to study the agreement. but of course, in this instance, mps will have already debated and approved the agreement as part of the meaningful vote. while we will follow normal procedure if we can, where there is insufficient time remaining following a successful meaningful vote, we will make, with parliament consents, agreements to make sure we can ratify on time and guarantee our exit ina can ratify on time and guarantee our exit in a meaningful way. let us remember what this looks like anxious people outside this place. it looks like what it is. prime minister, buying time in a disingenuous attempt to run down the clock and force mps disingenuous attempt to run down the clock and force mp5 from all four nations of the uk to back her with a

no deal done deal looming large, as she at any point in her accelerated timeline considered how and when she will gain legislative consent from devolved parliaments on the withdrawal agreement bill, which will, no doubt, encroach on their competences. she talks about buying time. what i am doing currently is taking a very clear message, given by this house of commons, to the european union, to negotiate changes to the deal, so this house of commons can have confidence and be able to agree that deal. dominic rob. does my right honourable friend agree that legally binding changes to the backstop is reasonable and essential to passing that deal. —— dominic raab. if brussels remains stubborn, it will

be the eu's choice, in turn. the point he makes about the legally binding nature of the changes is an important one. this house has been clear about these issues. as i indicated in an earlier response, it is this question of the different legal force of the commitments that have been made so far, and that's the one i have raised with the eu, and the concern that the withdrawal agreement in the international treaty would currently take precedence over treaty would currently take precedence over the legal assurances that were given the separate letter about the temporary nature of the backstop. it is that equivalent of a legally binding nature, to make sure that the withdrawal agreement cannot then trump anything extra, which is important. luciano burge. mr speaker, thank you. the whole house will have heard the prime minister's