minister 3 can kicking at the same time that fudge 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 backbenchers, made it clear they would vote to ta ke made it clear they would vote to take no deal off the table and break a three line whip and if necessary either resign from or be sacked in government. can the prime minister confirmed nothing has changed. and no deal remains firmly on the table? she talks about acting in the national interest. at every stage of this, the national interest has been the focus of the work i have been doing. that is why i negotiated what i believed to be a good deal with the european union. that was rejected by this house. it is why i have listened to the views of this house as to what the house wanted to see changed in the withdrawal agreement and in the package that was negotiated in order to ensure the house would support that package. that is why we are in talks

with the european union on that and why i intends to work to bring back to this house changes this house can support and ensure we will be able to leave the european union and to do so with a deal. most of my constituents are in all of the way, the stoic way, in which the prime minister has acted over these last two years. dealing with a subject which no other prime minister has ever had to deal with. she is breaking new ground. can the prime minister tell me what she thinks is the maximum extension she would seek to our withdrawal? i am grateful. cani to our withdrawal? i am grateful. can i say to him, my view is very simple, which is first of all that i do not want to see an extension. second, actually, yes, it is very simple that actually i want, should

there be an extension, for it to be as short as possible. it is already the case we are nearly three years on from the referendum in 2016. people who voted for us to leave the european union are rightly questioning that timetable and want to see us leaving the european union. should the house vote for a short limited extension, i would wa nt to short limited extension, i would want to see that being as short as possible. the prime minister was worried about setting a precedent by honourable members for dorset and pontefract. there is an easy solution. the prime minister could bring forward the bill in government time. the prime minister is leaving herself yet again wiggle room. that is on the issue of no deal. we have already voted against no deal in this house. she says she will not let us have a vote or no deal. can she confirm yet again there will be

no legal impediment to no deal at the end of this process, so what is this extension for? what we have seen, of course, is that, yes, the house voted in the way the honourable gentleman indicated but we are now working with the european union. we will bring changes agreed with the european union back to this house for a further meaningful vote and members of this house will then have the opportunity to determine whether they want to leave the european union with a deal or not. further votes, if they reject that, i have given a commitment to win that prize. mr blunt, having heard you from your seat, perhaps we can i'iow you from your seat, perhaps we can now hear you in to on your feet.|j rather suspect with all the enthusiasm that brenda of bristol had from the last general election, the extension of this debate for several months will be received with

dismay by the country. underneath that this may is massive uncertainty and there is a real price for extending this debate. i urge my right honourable friend to stick to her guns, to make sure there is a choice between her deal and leaving under wto terms. that is the choice to european union face, hopefully bringing them to end the backstop, and that is the choice the labour party should face as well. we can indeed bring an end to the uncertainty, doing that through a meaningful vote in this house to support the deal that the government will bring back from the european union. we all know that no deal will be an absolute catastrophe on so many different levels. does the prime minister actually acknowledge that her own deal will have a huge impact on the economy as well and that cutting immigration from eu

nationals by 80% will be the ruination of many cities and towns across our country? we have the opportunity now as a result of leaving the european union to put an immigration system into place, a new system, to bring an end to free movement once and for all, that was an important part of the element of the referendum debate and the reason i think quite a number of people actually voted to leave the european union. we can now put in place an immigration system based on skills, not where people come from. i can still see him. doctor julian lewis. come from. i can still see him. doctorjulian lewis. thank you for that warm—hearted introduction! there may be a special place in hell for those of us who want a clean break with the european union, but does my right honourable friend agree that there will be the devil to pay for any party that tries to

hold a second referendum to reverse the result of the first one?” absolutely agree. 0ur party campaigned to respect the result of the referendum. the labour party campaign, saying they would respect the result of the referendum. it is important that we do just that. the prime minister's government is as we preparing —— my as we speak preparing —— my as we speak preparing tariffs for food items like cheese and meat, and families in this country will pay who have suffered enough. is this really the tory party that she thought she would lead, banging on about europe, all the while creating new burning injustices every day they are in office? we have negotiated a deal

with the european union which is very clear on the issue of no tariffs, open to members of this house following changes we will bring back from the european union to support that deal. this is a government that has been dealing with a number of burning injustices in this country which were not dealt with by the previous labour government, the action taken on stop and search, in relation to mental health, and the race disparity audit. clearly having no deal with oui’ audit. clearly having no deal with our largest trading partner is deeply unattractive, which is why i have supported the deal. the government position has been to leave with a deal. the conservative ma nifesto leave with a deal. the conservative manifesto was very clear that it wa nted manifesto was very clear that it wanted both a trade deal and customs arrangement. if we do get too much to 12 and the deal is not accepted, can my right honourable friend

confirm it will remain the government's position that we want to secure a deal? and that i and if our negotiators need more time, the government will not be whipping its ministers to block the extension? she is right in saying the government has been very clear throughout all of this that we believe the best route for the united kingdom is to leave the european union with a deal and we will continue, that will continue to be this government's position. i wa nt to be this government's position. i want to work to ensure the situation she refers to does not arise because we are able to get that in a meaningful vote and get a deal agreed. can the prime minister explain how she intends to circumvent the need for checks... is the only realistic way of meeting that commitment in the political

declaration is with the customs union? we put those proposals forward some months ago and there will of course be the debate on the balance between alignment and checks when we come to the next stage of negotiations. the withdrawal negotiations. the withdrawal negotiations are nearing the final, most crucial, most delicate stages. against that background, does not my right honourable friend agree that talk from certain quarters of the government, taking the deal off the table are undermining the position of the british negotiators? asi as i said on a number of occasions before simply extending article 50 does not resolve the issue that this

house will have to take. when at the time comes, it will be for every member of this house to decide whether we should respect the result of the referendum. whether we should eat do that by leaving with a deal as the negotiations... as the changes to the negotiations that are currently being on the gone with the eu. that choice will be before every member of this house when the time comes. mr speaker, i always admire a good u—turn on either side of the house and i'm delighted to welcome new prime minister's screeching u—turn and acceptance that this house must have a chance to vote against a new deal. but could she be clear, if we have that vote on the 12th or 13th, will her government to be voting in favour of no—deal, or against it? to the honourable gentleman, i'm getting conflicting views across the chamber. 0n

gentleman, i'm getting conflicting views across the chamber. on one hand, and how'd nothing has changed, on the other hand, i am being told that it on the other hand, i am being told thatitis on the other hand, i am being told that it is a u—turn. on the other hand, i am being told that it is a u-turn. the prime minister was told a long time ago now that this would be the easiest deal in history. that we would be in an implementation period and not a transition period. given the importance of the future trade arrangements to this country, will that the prime minister commit to making sure red lines are put before parliament for parliament's democratically elected representatives to vote on, in relation to the future trade agreement? that is the way to ensure that the credibility of our democracy is not undermined. i've indicated on a number of occasions in others house that as we look to that next stage of negotiations,

which will indeed, trade route relationship with the eu. but also, security and other underpinning issues such as the exchange of data, that we will be looking to seek more involvement from parliament. my right honourable friend, the brexit secretary are looking for what that should take in the future? ? secretary are looking for what that should take in the future?? european leaders have the being cleared that they only agreed to an extension of article 50 for a good reason, not just for the prime minister to delay and do more counting down the road. so that extension has to be for a purpose. will she then make another u—turn and support of the confirmatory public vote that is a proposal now getting support across both sides of this house? to the honourable lady, i've made my views clear on this issue on a number of

occasions in this chamber. those are talking about a confirmatory vote, the option of romanian in the eu. —— i have to say, that will not be respecting the result of the referendum. does my right honourable friend agree about the whole history of the european union has shown that time and again when there are intractable disputes agreement is often obtained late at night, with about an hour ago before the clock i’u ns about an hour ago before the clock runs out. will she therefore stick to her deadline, and will she impress upon the eu that there is a majority in this house for her agreement if the necessary changes to the backstop can be made? we will

indeed, we are indeed, in those talks with the european union. we have made clear to them that there is support for a withdrawal agreement, provided we can see those necessary changes in relation to the backstop. i feel so enraged this week with the complete and utter lack of bravery to do the right thing for our country. maybe it's because i spent my week in my constituency trying to put out the burning injustices that the prime minister's government has started where i live. i will not sit one more day and listen to her crew about employment going up, when where i live employment is falling, and hunger is rising. i have one midwife for the entirety of my

constituency currently. there are people in my constituency living in hotels and they have to move out before crafts is coming to birmingham. will the premise i do a briefing and do what is best for the country, not what his best for any of us? do what is best for the country. will she be brave and at least a nswer country. will she be brave and at least answer the question of my colleague? will she at least vote herself against no—deal?” colleague? will she at least vote herself against no-deal? i recognise the passionately honourable lady raises. time and time again, i asked questions in this chamber, the application of which is to try to deny the facts of the situation that are before us. the facts are simple, this house will have a decision to ta ke this house will have a decision to take but there are only three

options that will be before this house. it is to leave the european union with a deal, to leave without a deal, or to revoke article 50 and have no brexit. i have been clear that the last of those is one that i will not support ad in this house should not support because it would go back only the result of the referendum. i do believe the prime minister has shown some courage today because there is some welcome pragmatism in what she has an answer she has acknowledged the fear that people have of time running out. unlike the honourable lady i spoke just before, the desperate need of the businesses and other constituencies to have certainty. without a doubt, that could be provided by voting for her deal when she puts it. but, in the event it does not carry, with my right honourable friend confirm the uk will now only leave the uk without a

deal if pollen it explicitly provides content? —— is parliament. if if it is a case that we bring the new thing go back i'm parliament rejects it, then we will table a motion to ask parliament its view on whether or not we should leave without it withdrawal agreement and future framework. 0n without it withdrawal agreement and future framework. on that business, would own a leap of how to deal with the consent of parliament. i would also echo the point my honourable friend made at the beginning of her question. which is, the betting for this parliament to do is to vote for a deal, such that we can leave with a deal, such that we can leave with a deal. the very first thing the south wales police raised with me when i first elected in 2001 was the problem they had in getting up to date information from other police forces in europe so that they could tackle paedophilia in the south

wales valleys. we have managed to achieve that over the years, as i'm sure the premise that knows from her time as home secretary. but if we leave without a deal, we will not have a deal on security. and that means the police from the day afterwards will not have access to that information. how will we make sure that we are safe if we proceed down a no—deal path?” sure that we are safe if we proceed down a no-deal path? i do indeed recognise the issue raised by the right honourable gentleman. it is one of the other things i did when i became home secretary, to agree that the uk should be part of the european union investigation order. i stood at the dispatch box with his right honourable friend is trying to stop me to ensure that we are keeping like the european arrest warrant. i believe that leaving with the deal is the right thing to be done for this country for a variety of reasons. most people focus on the trade and customs issues, but actually, the security issues are

just as important. that is why in no—deal preparations we work with others across the eu to see what arrangements can be in place for a new deal. but the deal we have negotiated is the best thing to happen because it does allow us access to key issues like name records. could my right honourable friend please confirm whether over the last fortnight in conversations with eu members she has heard anything to suggest that any eu country would fail to give it as an extension to article 50? if thatis as an extension to article 50? if that is the case, what those reasons might be? in fact, i have not been discussing with individual member states a n discussing with individual member states an extension to article 50. what i have been discussing with them is what it is the uk parliament

requires in order to get the change that would secure a majority in this house for the withdrawal agreement. the point is very simple, but to be the case of an extension to article 50 were requested by the uk, that would require the consent of all 27 members of the european union. but i have not had that discussion with them. the premise that will remember that i started off feeling sympathetic to her, especially when she started saying that she wanted to two people. then i felt rather sorry for her. today i have to tell her, from my constituents, ifeel very frightened from what she said today. i believe the premise that has lost her sense of direction and the real message every prime minister should have. forget about referendums, i think of miscellanea when i think of referendums. the

fa ct when i think of referendums. the fact is, her responsibility as the premise that is the national interest. the health, welfare, and prosperity of the people that we all represent. will she remind herself of that? face those people over the out down, and do something that delivers to this house? there is two thirds majority here for a sensible conclusion. bring back all the benches, that discuss this, two thirds of the people in this house what a sensible solution.” thirds of the people in this house what a sensible solution. i am precisely thinking of the national interest when i sit down with other european leaders with a view to negating changes to the withdrawal agreement and the package we agreed, such that we can bring back to this house and get an agreement for a deal. so that i can prepare to be allowing myself to the metaphysical plane, what is her estimate of the possibility of our leaving on time?

to my right honourable friend, it is my estimation it is within our grasp to get changes, such that we can bring a deal back to this house to enable this house to confirm in immune info about a desire to leave the european union, with a deal on the european union, with a deal on the 29th of march. the 22 years i've served my constituents, and their plight, at no time in those 22 years has the injustices those conditions herface, has the injustices those conditions her face, whether it is has the injustices those conditions herface, whether it is in has the injustices those conditions her face, whether it is in terms of poverty, housing, decent education, health service. labour government supplies of the a nswe rs labour government supplies of the a nswers to labour government supplies of the answers to that. that is why it is too important to recognise that in this house there are people on the

romanian side and leaside for who no—deal will ever be good enough. the time has come, as it is in the first line of the first leaflet in the 2017 election from labour, the decision to leave has been made by the british people. we said in the chapter of our manifesto, we are here to negotiate brexit, not stop it. that is not the prime minister agreeing. she needs to show compromise, but so does everybody in this house. i absolutely agree. it is necessary, of course. and we have seen compromise already, in relation to the deal that has been negotiated. but she is absolutely right to point out, as i live his earlier, 80% of the votes at the last general election were cast for parties which were clear in their ma nifestos parties which were clear in their manifestos that we would respect the result of the referendum. and we should be doing just that. i believe

the best way to do that is to leave the best way to do that is to leave the eu with a deal. ito bring india back to the house of commons that i would expect the house can support. isn't it still the reality that the withdrawal agreement, watch and all, remains the only serious show in town if we are to leave the european union? does the prime minister think that if this deal keeps getting booted out by this house that she will have to stand alongside the leader of the opposition, go on television, i'd explain to the british public why this house is incapable of delivering brexit? my honourable friend is absolutely right. we are seeking changes to the withdrawal agreement but the bulk of that agreement remains the same. intricate issues such as the legal aspect of businesses with country oaks with the eu after we leave. it is about a citizens‘ rights and

ensuring guarantees and protections for citizens‘ rights. he said in the event this house does not look for a deal, i should stand by the right honourable gentleman, the leader of the opposition, and explain why less house cannot vote for a deal to stop i think house cannot vote for a deal to stop ithinki house cannot vote for a deal to stop i think i might be difficult given his new policy. the right honourable gentleman seems not to want to deliver brexit. mr speaker, i think the premise of bus language borrowed from the extremists, in describing the bill from my right honourable friends as commandeering the house is totally irresponsible. doesn‘t the prime minister understand this isa the prime minister understand this is a parliamentary democracy? we are in the standing orders, and we can vote to change, either permanently 01’ vote to change, either permanently or temporarily, at any time?m vote to change, either permanently

or temporarily, at any time? it is absolutely right that the standing orders of this house can be changed by this house. in recent times, the standing orders of this house have often been interpreted in ways which was not expected. mr speaker, the vast majority of my constituents would echo every would likely member for don valley said. they voted to leave and we, in our manifestos, chose to respect results of that referendum. so, there is no question of us leaving. the only issue my constituents worry about is the inability of this house to get behind the painlessly and resolve the withdrawal agreement bill. given that business, particularly manufacturing, is hurting idle hood with every day going forward. will my right honourable friend that if she can agree with the eu the changes she is rightly looking forward before the 12th of march, that she will come out of this house early and put the question as soon

as possible? i think the vast majority of members of the public wa nt to majority of members of the public want to see this house delivering leaving the european union, in doing so in the best way for this country. we will be looking to make sure we can get those changes as soon as possible. when i said by the 12th of march, i met and that was the last date for a vote and if it is possible to bring earlier, i will do so. it is no wonder in scotland that the eu is more popular than the uk. the only sovereign decision this government can take is to revoke article 50. an extension to article 50 means that the premise that had to beg the eu 27 and put the uk at the mercy out of the kindness of the eu 27. does she agree that revoking article 50 is better than leaving without a deal, which is the current trajectory for the uk given the letter she wrote on the 29th of

march, 2017? i do not agree that revoking article 50 is a bit out wrote for this country. across this house, we gave people of this country at the opportunity to decide whether to leave the eu or not. they voted to leave. i believe it is imperative we respect that vote and deliver on it. when the premise that bring to a deal back to the house of commons, i will vote for the deal a second time. as the memberfor don valley said,... if the deal does not succeed in the house, will she then give the healthy option of voting for britainjoining the european trade area, called the norway option, which, commandeer support from across the house. and from some us sceptics, like daniel hannan.” think my right honourable friend is trying to step forward beyond to a

stage when we have taken those other those through this house. as i say, the first aim of the government and my first the first aim of the government and myfirstaim the first aim of the government and my first aim is to bring back a minute without that could support a command support across the house, such as we are able to leave with a deal. because the original eaves we have within the political definition i believe they have significant benefits on relation to issues such as customs. but also, provide for us to be able to have an independent trade policy and no free movement. i think there is an important element of what people iam glad i am glad the prime minister has finally recognised that if she can‘t get her agreement through, we will need to extend article 50 to avoid the risk and disruption of no deal on march the 29th, but like many others, i fear we willjust end up here again at the end of any extension, however long that will

be, because the prime minister won‘t change