with vnw it we. vnw ii‘ul‘ei eu vnw he eu e‘fir we are discussing with the eu and any changes that are agreed with the eu would be put before this house before the meaningful vote. he raised the issue of citizens‘ rights asi raised the issue of citizens‘ rights as i covered in my statement, it is not possible that eu does not have legal authority to do a separate deal itself without a new mandate. this is a matter unless it is part of withdrawal agreement and we have negotiated something within the agreement. if it is not within the agreement, it is a matterfor individual member states. we have taken that issue with individual state and a number have given guarantees. he referred to the issue of workers‘ rights. say i think it is important. he doesn‘t seem to be interested in the answers

i‘m giving. he advocated alignment on workers‘ rights, we think that those decisions should be taken in the uk and should be taken in this house and one of the reasons for taking the decisions on workers right rights is because governments of different colours in this country have consistently given greater rights to workers than the eu has negotiated. he asked, he referenced theissue negotiated. he asked, he referenced the issue of the labour party‘s approach to a deal. and of course the labour party‘s approach is that they do want a customs union and to be in the single market with a say on trade deals. in that sort of, well, please, if you‘re very nice to us, can well, please, if you‘re very nice to us, can we well, please, if you‘re very nice to us, can we sit around the table and maybe some time we maybe able to put in an opinion from the trade deals. if he wants the benefits of a

customs union, those are there within the political declaration in the deal that has been negotiated by this government. but what we also have in that political declaration is the right for us as an independent country to strike our own trade deals again and not to be relying on the trade deals struck by those in brussels. then he talks about the issue of the time that is running down to the 29th march. my sole focus throughout this has been on getting a deal that enables us to leave the eu on 29th march with a deal. it is the honourable gentleman who has kept no deal on the table by refusing to agree to a deal. and now. . . refusing to agree to a deal. and now... and he talks... he talks about uncertainty on jobs. he could have voted to end uncertainty on jobs by backing the deal the

government brought back from the eu. and finally he says, he says that he and the labour party accept the result of the referendum. yet we also know they back a second referendum. and by backing a second referendum, he is breaking his promise to respect the result of the 2016 referendum. he will be ignoring the biggest vote in our country and betraying the trust of the british people. mr kenneth clarke. mr speaker, may i congratulate the prime minister on accepting that we are not remotely ly ready for the chaos after no deal departure on 29th march and agree nothing deal would have damaging medium and long—term prospects for the british economy. i will continue to vote for any withdrawal agreement that she has got with the other eu countries.

but i doubt she will command a majority for any such agreement in the near future. can majority for any such agreement in the nearfuture. can i majority for any such agreement in the near future. can i turn to the real issue, which is how long is the delay we are going to be contemplating. she seems to be giving usa contemplating. she seems to be giving us a date for a new cliff edge at the end ofjune. but isn't the danger that we will merely continue the present pantomime performance and the public will be dismayed as we approach that date and find there is similar case chaos. may i suggest we contemplate a calmer delay and we have votes to see where a consensus oi' a calmer delay and we have votes to see where a consensus or majority lies and then prepare our position for the long—term negotiations that have to take place on eventual settlement. we can't have several

more years of what we have had for the last two years, we have to start proper negotiations with the eu on what exactly we contemplate as our long—term relationship with the union. of course we have the framework for that long—term relationship with the eu set out in the political declaration. that is the political declaration. that is the set o instructions to the negotiators. but we have to go through that second stage of negotiations. he asked about any extension to article 50 should that be necessary, i‘m clear i do not wa nt to be necessary, i‘m clear i do not want to see an extension to article 50 and should we be in the position fla such a proposal was put before the house i would wants to see it as short as possible. can i thank the prime minister for advance sight of her statement. i find prime minister for advance sight of her statement. ifind myself agreeing with the member for rushworth. it is the possibility

that we extend article 50 beyond the end ofjune and i give a suggestion to the prime minister, the snp are already putting in place candidates for the european elections. can i suggest the conservatives may consider doing the same? there are only 19 parliamentary days until brexit day. yet the prime minister wants to delay the meaningful vote up wants to delay the meaningful vote up to the 12th march. why? the 12th march only ten parliamentary days before brexit, we have lost nine days when this issue could have been resolved. the dutch prime minister said we are sleep walking into a no deal scenario. there was no break through in a 45 minute meeting with the german chancellor. council president donald tusk said an extension would be the rationale decision. although that would suggest that this government is

capable of making rational decisions. there is little evidence of that. your strategy to run down the clock is disastrous. isn't it the clock is disastrous. isn't it the case that you continue to fail to reach an agreement on the backstop, isn't it the case that you cannot get the alternative arrangements on cannot get the alternative arrangements on if backstop you promised at the end ofjanuary... i‘m not trying to get any alternatives to a backstop. mr blackford. isn't it if case that the government cannot get alternative arrangements on government cannot get alternative arrangements on the backstop that we re arrangements on the backstop that were promised in january, arrangements on the backstop that were promised injanuary, because the eu will not renegotiate. the eu has repeatedly made it clear that the withdrawal agreement is non—negotiatable. the withdrawal agreement is non— negotiatable. what the withdrawal agreement is non—negotiatable. what is it the prime minister does not get? businesses and citizens are worried about no deal. worried about the supply of medicines and food. it is the height of irresponsibility for

any government to threaten its citizens with these consequences. the prime minister sits and laughs at what she is doing to the people of the united kingdom. what a disgrace. mr speaker, the prime minister indicates she is not fit for office. the prime minister, will you accept the overwhelming advice of business, of mps and your cabinet, rule out no deal, extend article 50, but do it today. this should not be left until the middle of march. we can't trust this prime minister. parliament should take the opportunity to impose the time line that she has set out today. so that the prime minister cannot dodge this. prime minister. thank you mr speciesing. —— speaker. the honourable gentleman made reference to the discussions with eu and asked why the meaningful vote had not been

brought before... before the latest date of 12th march. the answer is because we are taking this time to negotiate the changes required by this house in in relation to the deal we negotiated. that includes the work that has been done on alternative arrangements, as i indicated, further work on those alternative arrangements has been agreed with the european union. all those questions about there not being an opportunity to renegotiate oi’ being an opportunity to renegotiate or get any changes, no, that is not the case, we are in talks with the eu and we are talking about the issues and we are talking about the issues and we are talking about the issues that this house required. finally, he talked about uncertainty. the uncertainty of not having the arrangements in place. cani having the arrangements in place. can ijust having the arrangements in place. can i just say, having the arrangements in place. can ijust say, if he wants to end uncertainty, if he want to deal with theissues uncertainty, if he want to deal with the issues he raised, if he wants to

end the uncertainty and deal with theissues end the uncertainty and deal with the issues he raised, then he should vote for a deal. . simples. iain duncan smith. may i welcome my honourable friend... order. i appeal to the house to give the honourable gentleman the respectful attention that he probably wants and i think he should have. very kind of you mr speaker. can i welcome the statement today. clearly she is right that we would prefer to have a deal, in the statement she made, she talked about alternative arrangements, which are bailed hugely on the compromise details. can i remind my honourable friend that it is clear behind closed doors that the uk government

officials and the eu recognise that what is right now in the backstop is unworkable and therefore they will have to implement alternative arrangements. therefore when she sits down with them to ask for this, could she say the alternative arrange mentes must reach a deadline date and be bound legally? so they cannot renege from that when we leave. can i say to my honourable friend, that in fact there has not been the suggestion that the arrangements are unworkable. but there has been an acceptance of the desire to discuss the alternatives and have those in place, such that we re and have those in place, such that were it the case that we ended the implementation period without the future relationship in place and that insurance place for no hard border in northern ireland was necessary , we border in northern ireland was necessary, we would have alternative

arrangements to put in place. one arrangement relates to the significant number of derogations from eu law that would be necessary to put the alternative arrangements in place. while i welcome the fact that the prime minister has at long la st that the prime minister has at long last been persuaded by a group of her own ministers to accept that there is no majority in this house for leaving the eu on 29th march with no deal, does she not understand that in all likelihood will continue to be no majorities for leaving no deal. whether it is march, june or october. so the question i wants to put to her is this. if we are going to have an extension to article 50, what does

she intend to use that time for? as i have been clear i want to ensure the work we are doing ensures that we get a deal that can command the support of this house. he says that there will continue to be what i said in my statement is that if we don‘t get, if we lose another vote, and that we will put a vote to the house on its view on leaving the eu on house on its view on leaving the eu on 29th march with no deal and were it the case that the house rejected the meaningful vote and voted for not leaving without a deal, a motion would come before the house in relation to an extension of article 50. but he says again and he has raised this before, about there being no majority for leaving wo no deal. the house has to face up to

the fact if it doesn‘t want to leave with no deal, either it wants to stay in the eu or it has to accept and vote for a deal. today‘s statement cannot have been easy for the prime minister to make because she has rightly determined we should honour the result of the referendum. i say that as someone who campaigned very strongly for us to remain in the eu. greeted with great alacrity in the country because the uncertainty facing businesses and individuals is now crushing. can she please make it clear now a deal which can command a majority in this house is only possible if there can be an agreement on changes to the backstop and putting in place alternative arrangements. can she also confirm it is incumbent on mps on all sides of this house to vote for this deal

which will be in the national interest of the country? can i say to my right honourable friend, she is absolutely right. first of all, we are discussing in the talks with the european union this issue with delivering the changes that were required by this house in relation to the concern the house had about the potential indefinite nature of the potential indefinite nature of the backstop. that there is the prospect, i believe we do have it within our grasp to get an agreement as such that we can leave the european union on the 29th of march with a deal. and when those changes are brought back as my right honourable friend says, i have every member of this house will recognise their responsibility to deliver on a devout of the referendum in 2016, to deliver brexit and to do it in the best way possible, with a deal. the prime minister has said for the first time she is willing to put a motion extending article 50 and i

hope that this reflects the strong arguments that have been made on all sides of the house about the damage that no deal what to do to this country. she will also know that promised votes have been pulled before. that commons motions have been ignored before. and that when the commons previously voted against the commons previously voted against the deal, the brexit secretary still told the house government policy was still to leave on the 29th of march with no deal. if the deal hadn‘t been passed. she said frankly the legislation takes precedence over the motion. if there is no legislation in place, what assurances do we have that votes will definitely be put, the government will abide by any motions, that also the entire cabinet will abide by any votes? and also what will the government‘s

policy be in those circumstances, to argue for no do? or to argue for an extension? —— for no deal? argue for no do? or to argue for an extension? -- for no deal? first she references the cabinet, this has been discussed by cabinet. this is a position the government has taken andi position the government has taken and i would not have brought it before the house if it were not a government position. i have set those dates. if the right honourable lady would care to look at what i have been doing in recent weeks at points where i have said i would come back today, the previous time i came back to the house it was a guarantee i would come back, i said i would bring a motion, guarantee i would come back, i said iwould bring a motion, i guarantee i would come back, i said i would bring a motion, i did, guarantee i would come back, i said iwould bring a motion, i did, we will bring a motion tomorrow. clear and firm commitment by this government to make sure we bring those bouts to this house and the house then has the opportunity. i recognised the concern of right honourable and honourable members for ensuring the voice of the houses heard and that is why i said those votes will be brought before the

house should we lose the vote. i continue to want to see this as supporting a meaningful vote so we can leave with a deal. as she will have heard in my statement i said that where we in the case that a vote for no no deal and then an extension had been brought forward we will take it to the european union the decision would not be entirely ours. it is up to the unanimous decision of the 29 member states of the european union to agree that extension. will my right honourable friend except that the bill to which the right honourable member hasjust bill to which the right honourable member has just referred, to delay article 50 would incur many billions of pounds of taxpayers‘ money available otherwise for public services and which otherwise would not be handed over to the eu if we left on the 29th of march and that the bill is effectively aimed at

overturning the democratic will of the british people, which parliament next self expressly entrusted to the beauties do it british people and must be honoured ? beauties do it british people and must be honoured? —— entrusted to the british people and must be honoured? can ijust say the british people and must be honoured? can i just say to the british people and must be honoured? can ijust say to my honourable friend that i think what i would hope members of this house would consider, given the commitments the government has made in relation to these issues, but i hope honourable members of this house would consider that actually that particular mechanisms within that bill have concert do it —— might go beyond brexit. in terms of democratic institutions going forward. it is important, i have been clear, i want to see a deal this house can support that allows us this house can support that allows us to leave on the 29th. that is

what we continue to work on. the leader of the opposition has listened to advice from his collea g u es listened to advice from his colleagues and these benches and others and accepted the principle of a peoples vote with the option to remain, will she not now listen to the advice of her own ministers who say that a no—deal brexit, whether at the end of march orjune, would be so damaging it must now be firmly ruled out? yet again, he talks about firmly ruling out a no deal option. there are only two alternatives to no there are only two alternatives to no deal. one is to revoke article 50 and stay in the european union, which we will not do, and the other is to agree a deal. if he wants no deal off the table, i hope when they do is back, he will vote for that deal. -- but when the deal is back.

it is clear listening to the questions today there is not a consensus in the house. we face gridlock, have a run down the clock, rather than wasting more time repeating votes we have already had and this house has already expressed its will on, for example on no deal, for example in relation to the government‘s deal and withdrawal agreement, is it‘s now time we all put our effort into recognising the gridlock and taking the responsibility for deciding how we get out of it? i do not believe it is going to change. we can keep on going round in circles with the damage that does to businesses and jobs or we can confront it, decision it and find a way forward for britain? obviously, i recognise that she feels very strongly on these issues. i want to see us able to deliver on the result of the

referendum and doing it in the best way for the country, to leave with a deal. that is what we will be working on. she talks about decision points, there will be for this house in the meaningful vote, looking at the changes agreed with the european union. at that stage, i have every member of this house will recognise the need to respect the result of the need to respect the result of the referendum in 2016 and to leave the referendum in 2016 and to leave the european union with a deal. the referendum in 2016 and to leave the european union with a dealm is not the crucial difference between what she is proposing and the proposal of the right honourable gentleman, member for dorset west, and my honourable friend who chairs the home so i committed, theirs is watertight and legally binding, hers is not? given the number of times she has gone back on her word and caved in, why should we trust anything she says? can i say that there is a difference between the

proposal put forward that he refers to and the commitments i have given today. that is the proposal put forward goes much more widely than in relation to the issue of brexit. i have a concern about the relationship in the future between government and parliament is about ensuring that we can continue to maintain what has been a balanced relationship between government and parliament that has stood the country well over many, many years and retaining that into the future. cani and retaining that into the future. can i congratulate the prime minister and the brexit secretary for persuading the european union to accept a task force to work out the alternative arrangements into a practical proposition. what has emerged in discussions is that the customs arrangement we cut and pasted from the old turkish agreement are archaic and require

many pieces of paper stamped as in ming dynasties china. a definitive implementation date, to remove the toxic backstop and get many people on toxic backstop and get many people on this side of the house to vote for the agreement. will she get a legally binding change in the text to deliver that? the commitment is that we will ensure, as i said to the member... where we are to get to the member... where we are to get to the point of it being necessary to exercise what is known as the backstop or insurance policy for no ha rd backstop or insurance policy for no hard border in northern ireland, we re we hard border in northern ireland, were we to get to that point at the end of the implementation period where it was necessary, we want the alternative arrangements ready at that point so that the backstop as

currently drafted needs never be used. that is the aim and intent. we wa nt to used. that is the aim and intent. we want to work quickly so we have those clearly ready and understood before that date. the commitment is to ensure those alternative arrangements can indeed replace the backstop and ensure it does not need to be used. the prime minister's withdrawal deal agreement as proposed in draft defeated in this house by 230 votes, she hardly needs reminding. the reason primarily the loss of the majority was because of the backstop. she has committed to binding legal changes in terms of the backstop, effectively reopening the backstop, effectively reopening the withdrawal agreement. she must know that without a legally watertight way out of the backstop then certainly we could not support any future withdrawal agreement brought to this house. does she not think that the machinations of some of her ministers and the proposals

that she has actually announced today, does she think this will have the effect in brussels and on european leaders of making it more likely to concede what is necessary or perhaps they willjust likely to concede what is necessary or perhaps they will just sit likely to concede what is necessary or perhaps they willjust sit back and wait? the discussions that i have had in the european union, with eu leaders and indeed with the european commission are very clear. they are entering into those talks with us with the intention of finding a rep as though it ensuring that we have that legally binding change that ensures people can have the confidence that the issue be house raised about the indefinite nature of the backstop has been redressed and result. we are working on about. i recognise the right honourable gentleman has a lwa ys the right honourable gentleman has always been consistent to his references for the need for the

right legal status for that change, and that is what we are working for. iam and that is what we are working for. i am pleased to hear from and that is what we are working for. i am pleased to hearfrom my right honourable friend a willingness to consider the possibility of an extension of article 50 to prevent a catastrophic note to brexit. my honourable friend also said, rightly, that across this house there are widely divergent views as to why the deal that she has negotiated in good faith has been rejected. my concern is this, i see no reason to think that the situation will change because despite what she has done in good faith, it is a second—rate outcome for our country. if this is to continue, how are we indeed to break the logjam. here i have to say to her that her browbeating of the house that she did today indicating that unless we simply go along with

a deal which is considered to be inadequate, there is no solution but i know do brexit, or a unilateral revocation is simply inaccurate. surely it is perfectly possible and utterly democratic for us to go back and asked the public whether the deal she has negotiated is acceptable. he says that there has been no indication from this house that there are diverse views around his house and no indication therefore as to why the withdrawal agreement was rejected. indeed, this house indicated by the withdrawal agreement was rejected, in the majority vote on the 29th january which indicated an issue around the backstop and changes to the backstop that were required. and the house would support the withdrawal agreement with the necessary changes to the backstop. it is not right to say this house has not indicated the

result that it wishes to see. he also i think aims to chastise me as to the options i have put before the house. i say to him, the second referendum does not change the fact that ultimately the three options open to us are to leave the european union with a deal, to leave it with no deal or to have no brexit. those will remain the options. this is a shameful moment. nothing has changed. apart from the fact that some of us who used to sit over there are now sitting over here. one of the reasons for that is because yet again we see in the prime minister a can kicking at the same

time that fudge is being created and a failure to put the country and the nation‘s interests first. instead of the future —— my instead, the future of the conservative party is put first and foremost. honourable and right honourable members sitting opposite made it clear they would vote in accordance with their conscience and the national interest to ta ke conscience and the national interest to take no do... mr blunt, the quiet, you are not the arbiter of what the right honourable lady says. don't try to shut her down. it is beneath you. more importantly, it will fail. anna subaru. the benefits of being older and a bit deaf, i did not hear. in any event, the important point is, honourable members and right honourable members and right honourable members opposite them in

government and senior