hello. welcome to outside source. tomorrow mps and my semester will bolt on theresa may's proposals for brexit. this evening she is an strasbourg meeting the european union. this is the life picture we have coming in. lots ofjournalists awaiting what may or may not be a press c0 nfe re nce . awaiting what may or may not be a press conference. details are not plentiful. we are expecting at some point theresa may and jean—claude juncker to tell us how their talks have gone. when the prime minister arrived, both sides appeared confident there was by all accounts a warmth to the initial exchanges. then they wind behind closed doors to get down to the detail. we still don't know what that is. some of the prime minister's opponents to her

gear have been telling us what they have heard. all i know now is that i think if they are reaching the point where they are about to have some kind of agreement. i'm speculating, but that is my implication. this is the live feed coming from the house of commons. she will persist in those negotiations until she is satisfied with that being achieved. but i can, mr speicher, provides the house with an update tonight on what has been agreed so far. clearly the government will update the house at the earliest opportunity tomorrow should there be an outcome to the continuing talks in strasbourg that will have an impact upon tomorrow's debate. this evening and strasbourg, the prime minister and my right honourable friend the secretary of

state for exiting the eu have secured it legally binding changes that strengthen and improve the withdrawal agreement and political declaration. the house and spoke clearly on the 29th of january when it voted in favour of honouring the decision of the british people and you leaving the european union with a deal that works for the uk. the primary issue of concern them with the northern island backstop. this house said it needed legally binding changes and today that is what the prime minister and the secretary of state have achieved. tonight we will be laying to the new documents in the house. ajoint legally binding instrument on the withdrawal agreement and protocol on northern island. inajoint agreement and protocol on northern island. in a joint statement to supplement the political declaration. the first provides confirmation that the eu cannot try to track the uk empty backstop indefinitely, and that doing so

would be an explicit breach of the legally binding commitments that both sides have agreed. if, contrary to all expectations, the eu were to act with that intention, the united kingdom could use this acceptance of what could constitute an explicit breach as the basis for a formal dispute through independent arbitration that such a breach had occurred. ultimately, suspending the protocol if the eu continued to breach its obligations. on top of this, thejoint breach its obligations. on top of this, the joint instrument also reflects the united kingdom's and the european union's commitment to work to replace the backstop with alternative arrangements by december 2020. setting out explicitly that these arrangements do not need to replicate the provisions of the backstop in any respect. this

provision on alternative arrangements will be legally binding. i help as well that that legally binding commitment that the alternative arrangement did not need to replicate the backstop in any respect, will go some way to reassure honourable members that the backstop does not predetermine what oui’ backstop does not predetermine what our future relationship with the european union should be. thejoint instrument also puts the commitments set out by president! jean—claude juncker and donald tusk injanuary onto a legally binding flooding, underlining the meaning of best endeavours, stressing the need for negotiations on the future relationship to be taken forward urgently, and confirming the assurances we made it to the people of northern ireland. for example, providing a united kingdom lock on any new eu laws being added to the backstop. the second document is a

joint statement supplementing the political declaration which outlines a number of commitments by the united kingdom and the european union, to enhance and expedite the process of negotiating and bringing into force the future relationship. for example, it makes reference to the possibility of provisional application. of such future agreement. and it sets out in detail how the specific negotiating track on alternative arrangements will operate. as i said, mr speaker, negotiations are continuing. in the government will provide an update to the house at the earliest opportunity should there be further changes. i would also completely understand that members on all sides of the house will want to have the opportunity to study the documents

in detailand opportunity to study the documents in detail and analyse their import. clearly there will be the opportunity during the debate scheduled tomorrow. members will be able to question the prime minister or ministers, and seek answers to those questions. it is also the case that, as he said last week, the attorney general has given commitment from this dispatch box to publish his legal assessment. that will be available to all members in good time before the debate. honourable members, mr speaker, say when. since my right honourable learned friend has just seen the outcome of the negotiations as they have concluded so far in strasbourg,

i think the house would expect that they would want the attorney general to consider very carefully the implications of those documents. hear, hear! rather than rest and append men out —— rush an opinion out to meet the deadline for the statement this evening. this evening we shall table in the motion that the house will debate tomorrow. we shall also publish, we have already of course publish, we have already of course publish the withdrawal agreement and political declaration, and other papers required of us under the european withdrawal act. bills will be supplemented by the documents that i have drawn to the house's a plaintiff this evening. tomorrow the house will vote on this included deal. mr speaker, i believe the deal we have already secured represents a good dealfor the we have already secured represents a good deal for the whole country and delivers on the result of the

referendum. when i was knocking on doors during referendum campaign, a message i clearly thought from people who voted to leave the european union bus that they wanted to ta ke european union bus that they wanted to take back control. particularly of our borders but also of our loss. the deal ends free movement that allows us to deliver a skilled space in immigration since and is the jurisdiction of the european court ofjustice in the uk. we will also ta ke ofjustice in the uk. we will also take back control of our money, no longer sending vast sums to be european union. we will leave the common fisheries policy and common agricultural policy, and take it back control of our trade policy. i also found in 2016 that with the people voted to leave or to remain, they wanted us to half feet deep and special partnership with the

european union that my party's ma nifesto european union that my party's manifesto committed us to delivering. in the political declaration and framework for the future relationship allows for this. in the meaningful vote tomorrow, this house will face a fundamental choice. we said we would negotiate a good deal with the eu, and i believe we have. the eu has been clear that this is, with each improvements that have been announced and which continue to be negotiated, this will be the only deal on the table. tomorrow there will be a fundamental choice to vote for the improved deal or to plunge this country into a political crisis. if we vote for this improved deal, we will both and if the current uncertainty and have delivered to brexit. the house was clear on the need for a legally binding changes to the backstop.

today we have secured and those changes. now is the time to come together, to back this improved brexit deal and deliver on the instruction of the british people. hear, hear! i don't complain for not having advanced notice of the minister's statement. i am advanced notice of the minister's statement. iam not advanced notice of the minister's statement. i am not sure he has not advanced notice on it. laughter but what an absurd situation the prime minister has got herself into. having lost the meaningful vote on the 15th of january, by historic majority, on the 29th of january the prime minister stood there and told this house that she would seek legally binding changes to the backstop. her precise words, mr speaker was this, standing there, "what i am talking about is not a further exchange of letters but a significant and legally binding change to the withdrawal agreement".

let's see what document is put on this table tomorrow. hear, hear! ididn't hear this table tomorrow. hear, hear! i didn't hear the words come from dispatch, but the withdrawal agreement being change. she said it will involve reopening the withdrawal agreement, i believe i can secure such a change in advance of our departure from the eu. she then faulted for an amendment in the name of right honourable member which called for the backstop to be replaced with alternative arrangements. it sounds as if none of that has happened, nor is likely to happen. turning thejoint letter from president assad and president yunker of the 14th of january —— president task and president jean—claude juncker. it adds nothing. understatements that there is no duty to replicate what is in the backstop, here in this letter of the backstop, here in this letter of

the 14th of january. it is not new, thatis the 14th of january. it is not new, that is not today, that was in the letter. if all that is happening is to turn this letter into an interpretation tool for legal purposes, i remind the house let the prime minister said on the 14th of january about this letter. she said that she had been advised that this letter "what have legal force and international law" of such a stand here today and say this is a significant change when she is repeating what she said on the 14th of january is not repeating what she said on the 14th ofjanuary is not going to take anyone very far. hear, hear! we will look at the detail and whether the withdrawal agreement has been changed. show it to us first! i am looking forward, mr speaker, to the reaction tomorrow when the

withdrawal agreement unchanged will be on here. you're in charge! order. appeal to members on both sides. calm down. i say to any senior members who from a sedentary position are chuntering, do try to grow up. mr speaker, i will wait to see the detail but as i understand it, this document, the withdrawal agreement, is being placed on the table as it were tonight for a vote tomorrow. this agreement unchanged. ifiam tomorrow. this agreement unchanged. if i am wrong about that, that this document has been changed, i am sure i will be corrected in just a minute. that cannot be described as legally binding changes to the backstop. nor could the steps

outlined, and we will have to see what they are in full, allow the attorney—general to change his opinion that under international law the backstop would endure and definitely until a proceeding agreement took its place in whole or in part. members of this house will recall that in the attorney—general‘s advice last time what he focused on was the fact that the only remedy under the withdrawal agreement for breach of the good faith or best endeavours obligations is temporary suspension of obligations and until the parties returned to the negotiating table. that was announced just now as a pa rt that was announced just now as a part of the breakthrough new agreement. it is there an article 170 85, page 292. it has been since it was signed off on the 25th of november. that is not new either. it sounds again as if nothing has changed. if that is right, then the prime minister is left with a pile of broken promises. i'm sure

tomorrow on the government benches, many will be disappointed when they look at the detail. they should be disappointed but not surprised. we have repeatedly raised questions about the prime minister, raising expectations she could not meet. the whole approach has been misguided. the fault lies squarely on the prime minister's door. confirm, that's the whole cabinet not support the position as it now is? does the cabinet support the position as it now is? when will the house received the attorney—general‘s updated legal advice? a straightforward answer to the question, is a single word of the question, is a single word of the withdrawal agreement different now to the document that was agreed on the 25th of november? it's been a wholly unsatisfactory 2a hours,

symptomatic of the last two years. tomorrow the house will express it to you. these benches will reject it. we expect the house to be ejected. now we can move on and break the impasse. thank you, mr speaker. hear, hear! mr speaker, it is when the right honourable gentleman got to his phrase about how the opposition front bench was going to reject it, i thought that was the one that had been prepared a very long time in advance. i understand that the honourable member of the set, like other members of the house on all sides, is going to want to study the detail of the text. i want to make a number of things clear in response to the honourable gentleman's questions. first, the right honourable gentleman questions. first of all, the joint instrument

has equal status in law to the withdrawal agreement itself. therefore the withdrawal agreement and thejoint therefore the withdrawal agreement and the joint instrument that has been negotiated today have to be read alongside each other. they have equal legal force. secondly, read alongside each other. they have equal legalforce. secondly, the government was chided over the question of alternative arrangements. it is a significant advance to have written into a legal text now, a date at the end of 2020 because working actively to achieve that now becomes a legal obligation on both the united kingdom and the european union. the honourable and

learned gentleman also questioned the point of place putting the promises made by president yunker and president tusk injanuary into law. the thrust of his critique had been that we needed to put things into law, rather than rely upon promises. i think again, there is a definite advance in line with what this house had wanted. he asked to meet specific questions. i did say my opening statement that it is obviously reflecting urgently that also with due consideration by proper analysis on the documents that have been negotiated today. he will provide his assessment to the house as he is promised to do, as early as he can tomorrow and ahead of the debate. he asked me about the

cabinet in its entirety, endorsed and voted for the deal when he last came before the house. today we have improvements upon the deal for which the cabinet has supported. the whole cabinet is supporting these improvements. hear, hear! mr speaker, can i start by welcoming my right honourable friend to the despatch box at this late hour? can i say to him that what he has said this evening as of the greatest interest to many of us who want to know whether or not this is a genuine improvement to the problems that existed. i am one of those. my vote will be based on what i interpret from this. given all of that any number of issues here that joint legally binding instrument and also interplay between the uk's with unilateral ability to revoke the backstop and then refer to

independent tribunal, my question really is given all of that, the attorney—general making a statement would it not be better for the attorney—general to appear here in the house to explain his findings to be questioned? and maybe if that ta kes be questioned? and maybe if that takes longer, for us to push back the belt to the following day? it is better to know what we are voting on thenit better to know what we are voting on then it is to rush that felt and then it is to rush that felt and then repent. i am grateful. for his comment in the work that he and others have done in developing the ideas about alternative arrangements and trying to make sure that those really are built into the mainstream of the work that we do. and are inviting legally binding and enforcea ble inviting legally binding and enforceable commitments. i will ensure that the attorney—general is

aware of the request for him to appear tomorrow. i think in terms of the timing of debate, obviously the business for tomorrow has already been announced in may noble way. i'll emphasise that the prime minister made a commitment from the despatch box last week to the timetable for this week. she was pressed by right honourable members from different parts of the house to provide clarity on that. it is her clear intention to stick to the timetable that she has announced. clear intention to stick to the timetable that she has announcedlj am timetable that she has announced.” am grateful to the secretary of state for his statement. i feel i can understand the reasons why the... disappointing there appears to be no arrangements made for november. i hope the secretary of state can confirm that before we finished a 90 statement will be

available to all members who want a copy of state has gone on with the peace process guarantee. that is what the backstop is, a peace process guarantee. but that guaranty remains in place, and it must remain in place. can the secretary of state confirm that the government is going by the same political guarantee that it entered into in december 2017, thatis it entered into in december 2017, that is the uk government's responsibility to come up with a man of managing the irish part of that confines down that complies with their deadlines and compliance with their deadlines and compliance with the belfast agreement. for those of from the peace process guarantee was an advantage and not a problem, nothing has changed. we will still get the same rotten deal, taking scotla nd get the same rotten deal, taking scotland out of the european union. 62% of our sovereign citizens. a sell—out of scotland's fishing

fleet. exactly peace sell—out the secretary of state promised to resign over, and still hasn't. in the debate tomorrow, we look at the same condescending answers to questions about the impact on scotland. the answer is simply scotland, back in your box, this is advice you have to pay for being pa rt advice you have to pay for being part of the united kingdom. well, mr speaker, from the conservative benches i have heard a number of times that cabinet ministers have responded to questions about the impact of scotland by saying, can i... tonight we are seeing clearer than ever the price of being part of that. hear, hear! can be secretary of state confirm taxpayer—funded to represent

themselves? at what time tonight love the first ministers of the national government of scotland wales, and if they left to hear on the news while others who hold no national government positions are getting preferential treatment? will the secretary of state not accept the secretary of state not accept the mood of parliament and both nations is that they still cannot go through? when he accept that the only legitimate choice is not between this deal and no deal, it is between this deal and no deal, it is between this deal and no deal, it is between this brexit and no brexit. cani between this brexit and no brexit. can i ask them to make sure that the prime minister and her cabinet collea g u es prime minister and her cabinet colleagues are fully aware of the fa ct colleagues are fully aware of the fact that if his government exist on tracking the people of scotland out of the european union against their will on these or any other terms, the people of scotland will be given

the people of scotland will be given the choice as the fate of the two unions who matter hear, hear! the answer to that will not be the a nswer the answer to that will not be the answer that the smiling right honourable gentleman of the government front bench expects or wa nts. government front bench expects or wants. hear, hear! mr speaker, sir, the prime minister is still engaged in the talks and strasbourg, which is certainly her intention to speak personally to the first ministers of both scotland and wales at the earliest opportunity. once those talks have concluded. i would say that i do take exception to the insinuation in the early part of his comments, that the government is in some way restyling from its support for the difficult and challenging process of peace

building and reconciliation in northern ireland. that process is something that ought to unite members from all parties. it has been set by the prime minister and others repeatedly, our commitment to all the undertakings that were given in and flow from the belfast and good friday agreement continued undiminished and always will do so while this government is in office. finally, i thought that the honourable gentlemen painted a caricature of this government's attitude towards scotland and the scottish people. i want to go into the political knock—about, i am tempted to go to work. but i would

say this. it is a bit rich for the honourable gentlemen to give lectures about respecting the results of a referendum... hear, hear! window but he —— when what his name party leaders said, now airbrushed out of history... laughter his then party leaders said was a once ina his then party leaders said was a once in a generation opportunity to vote for the scottish independence, was put to the people of scotland, it was rejected decisively. ijust wish the honourable gentlemen would accept that mandate from the scottish people. my right honourable

friend has referred to these documents being available on the table tonight. when will they be placed? table tonight. when will they be placed ? can we table tonight. when will they be placed? can we see them this evening? secondly, is this whole set of documents at treaty level? these will be examined extremely carefully by many people throughout the house and bite european scrutiny commission, who will be looking at them as well. we'll need as much notice as possible. at what time will the attorney—general‘s be available tomorrow, having regard to the timing of the debate? will the attorney—general come to the house to explain his opinion on those documents before the debate and in good time? it is certainly our intention to lay documents as early as possible. this evening, my expectation is that, well, the

documents have to be laid before the house concludes its business for tonight. if they are to be formally taken into tonight. if they are to be formally ta ken into account tonight. if they are to be formally taken into account during tomorrow's debate and results. i would expect nothing other that my honourable friend and his committee would want to considerfalse friend and his committee would want to consider false documents very carefully. the attorney will make his assessment available as soon as possible, in line with the commitment that he gave to this house from the despatch box last week. the secretary of state referred to the possible suspension of our obligations in respect of the backstop. they're watching bbc news coverage of the house of commons a statement by britain by britton's de facto deputy prime minister. theresa may,

the prime minister, is in strasbourg. we will hear from her shortly. let's hear from strasbourg. we will hear from her shortly. let's hearfrom hilary benn, chairman of the brexit select committee in the uk house of commons. involve questions about the interpretation of the application of eu law, can the secretary of state confirmed for the house tonight that any such questions would have to be referred by the arbitration panel to the court ofjustice and the european union, and that any ruling of the court, despite what he said tonight, would be binding on the arbitration panel on the european union, and crucially, on the united kingdom? i will say a couple of things in response to the right honourable