hello, you're watching in breach of the law. we are afternoon live — permitted, in a case of a i'm simon mccoy live at westminster. fundamental change of circumstances, to withdraw by the law. we would, if today at 2 — time to make your minds up — in six hours time mps will have to such a change of circumstances came vote on theresa may's brexit deal. about, either because of some but — in a blow for fundamental political change in the prime minister — the attorney general says the changes agreed last night in strasbourg are not enough for him northern ireland, or some fundamental change of circumstances to change his legal advice — going to the essential basis of the while saying they do reduce the risk of the uk being stuck agreement, then we would have the in the so—called irish backstop. right to withdraw. but in all normal let me make it clear: the legal risk, as i set it out in my letter circumstances, all invisible and of the 13th of november, predictable circumstances, particularly while we are negotiating a subsequent agreement remains unchanged. to the pace and accelerated so is this a killer timetable that this instrument now blow for may's deal? the pro leave european requires, we would not do so. it would be wrong to do so. wrong because it would be a breach of our research group is indicating obligations, wrong because this is a it will vote against it. law—abiding country. if the legal obligations, wrong because this is a law-abiding country. the attorney general said that it is highly unlikely the best endeavours that they cannot reach an agreement. but they cannot reach an agreement. but the last four months, the government

has been in brussels trying to replace the backstop with alternative measures and has come back empty— handed. the alternative measures and has come back empty—handed. the negotiations have not delivered, despite the best endeavours. is it not the case that the very situation he describes in two years' time as being highly unlikely, if the situation we are in right now today? no, no. the alternative... we haven't been attempting to secure alternative arrangements now. we have been putting forward the fact that in the future, all of those alternative arraignments are likely to exist. and so the european union has responded by saying that we will set up responded by saying that we will set upa new responded by saying that we will set up a new negotiation track, we will negotiate with an increased urgency and toa negotiate with an increased urgency and to a new timetable, and we will implement them and then it defined them, customs procedures and technologies and so on. so it is not

right to say that the same situation arises now. these systems will be developed over time, and that is the purpose of the working group that the union has agreed to set up with this country. may i thank the attorney general for being so patient when i have been working on this unilateral declaration of the last two months? may i thank him for including it in at the final agreement? may i ask him a detailed question, because the devil is in at the detail? there is no doubt, having worked with academic opinion, that a unilateral declaration is absolutely binding as long as it is positive at the time the treaty is ratified. the unilateral declaration makes it clear that there is likely to stop the uk leaving the backstop if talks break down. but it has to bea if talks break down. but it has to be a unilateral, conditional, interpretative declaration. that is what international law states because we are only signing and

agreeing to this withdrawal agreement on condition, and that is why the word conditional is important, on the condition is that if the talks break down we can exit. so can at the attorney general use the word conditional now to reassure the word conditional now to reassure the house? i would need to... may i say straightaway to the right honourable gentleman that i am extremely grateful for the dialogue we have had. i will say in no small part, was the right honourable gentleman the author of the seeds of this idea. a lot of the material that he and other, may i say so, other distinguished lawyers, have been able to contribute, has led to the proposal that we have now adopted? the unilateral declaration in this case doesn't need to be conditional because it is not objected to by the union. it is not objected to by the union. it is not objected to, and it is ratified, the

withdrawal agreement is ratified by the union, it becomes binding. mr speaker, i the union, it becomes binding. mr speaker, lam hoping the union, it becomes binding. mr speaker, i am hoping the attorney general will be able to respond to me today without any reference to either his underwear or his genitalia. last week, he said we seek legally binding changes to the backstop that ensure it cannot be indefinite. today, he says, "the legal risk remains unchanged." and all he is able to offer us is a new work schedule, a sort of glorified to—do list. so why does he keep saying times of the essence? hasn't the prime minister wasted the last two months? i will try to obey her scriptures about comments i made before. but may i say to the honourable lady, that is not quite right? i have said that the legal risk is reduced. the legal risk of

being held in the backstop by bad faith or by a want of best endeavours has reduced. it has reduced because of significant improvements which, as i said, set the context and benchmark for the enforceability of those important duties. but it is absolutely true, she rightly says, that the risk of remaining in the backstop, absent any fundament of a change of circumstance, if no bad faith, or if no want of best endeavours is present, remains the same. no want of best endeavours is present, remains the samelj no want of best endeavours is present, remains the same. i am not a lawyer either, but the attorney general is doing a very good job, i think, add clarifying to me and to the house the important improvements and that it is likely negotiating tea m and that it is likely negotiating team has brought. a lawyer i know characterised paragraph 19 of his letter as a minimal legal risk, unlikely to be crystallised. would my right honourable friend agree with that opinion? yes, i would. i

would simply not believe, given what is at stake, that the people of northern ireland and the republic of ireland, and the credit and faith of the eu which will be on the line, and our ability now to measure their performance against the detailed timetables and procedures that are now in place, i simply do not believe that we will be unable to reach any agreement with them. because, i repeat, it is perfectly possible to approach this in stages. to agree several agreements. we will be able to agree something over the next two or three years. and the first priority which is set out in this intimate, is the subsequent agreement replacing the backstop.- speaker, my preference would be an arrangement that does not necessitate the backstop. for all of

the words the attorney general has used,is the words the attorney general has used, is it not the case that the joint instrument, the unilateral declaration, the change to the declaration, the change to the declaration, for all his words, none of those things facilitates an unconditional, unilateral withdrawal by the uk from the backstop? and more than that, for all of the words he has used, we are still going to end up paying a divorce bill of over £50 billion, in part for a political declaration that has no legal force whatsoever. that is the key point. the right honourable gentleman is not right about that. the political declaration under article 184, there isa declaration under article 184, there is a duty upon the uk to negotiate a deal that is in line and according to the political declaration. that is the first point. the second point that the right honourable gentleman saysisis that the right honourable gentleman says is is there any unconditional right to withdraw? i have answered

that question, with respect. the only circumstances under which there would not be a unilateral right to a draw... i commend my right honourable friend leonard friend for the way he is pursuing the remit of his office. he is of course right that there is a political declaration! dimension to this. he has confirmed today that, if there was a fundamental change of circumstances, this country would have the right to walk away from the agreement. can he also confirmed that if that was to happen and we did walk away and we could take northern ireland with us as a member of the united kingdom, thereby extracting them from the customs union within the eu? let me make it clear, the uk is the uk. it includes northern ireland. and there is no circumstance in which the government

of this country, and are certainly not a conservative government, will ever leave northern ireland behind. subject to the obligations under the belfast agreement. let me say, because that has been proposed, it has been proposed that we should have a termination right for gb only. the prime minister explained why that was unacceptable. the attorney general says of the joint incident and the content of the unilateral declaration, related to the withdrawal agreement, reduce the risk that the uk could indefinitely or involuntarily be held in at the backstop in the event of bad faith. but surely that was only ever a very, very limited risk? is it not true that the far greater risk of being held in the backstop indefinitely is not as a result of the failure of either party to act in good faith, but because of

intractable differences? in such circumstances, isn't it right that the people of northern ireland and the people of northern ireland and the republic of ireland should have the republic of ireland should have the confidence that measures they can trust will be in place to prevent a hard border? and that the backstop should be exited on upon a new agreement being reached? doesn't that make perfect sense? it does make perfect sense. i have to say that i would have preferred to see a right of termination mitigated and graduated fairly balancing and apportioning risk and only usable in apportioning risk and only usable in a last resort with the. the union is not willing to agree to that moderate proposal. that is why i voted for the deal. i think it is sensible that that assurance can be given. that is why the british government has given it. i would say this, though, bad faith and best endeavours is not now, particularly

now, with a context tightened and the benchmarks tightened, is not a meaningless duty because best endeavours requires that a party should consider proposals... we will pull away from the commons for now. the attorney general still addressing the chamber. ijust want to reiterate the breaking news we brought you a short time ago that the civil aviation authority, which has now banned the boeing 737 max 8 from operating in or over uk airspace. they are describing this asa airspace. they are describing this as a precautionary measure. this comes as a precautionary measure. this co m es after as a precautionary measure. this comes after the ethiopian airlines boeing crushing on sunday killing all 100 and 57 people on board. the ukjoins malaysia, all 100 and 57 people on board. the uk joins malaysia, singapore, all 100 and 57 people on board. the ukjoins malaysia, singapore, china and australia in banning the aircraft and the civil aviation authority says this will remain in place until further notice. let's return to what is happening here because the conservative party's

influential and important european research group says they will not vote the deal because the proposals don't meet the test that the government set for itself. their decision follows attorney general geoffrey cox's conclusion a little earlier that the prime minister's deal does not give the uk the legal right to leave the so—called irish backstop without the eu's agreement. mark pritchard is here. it is the same deal you are going to be voting on tight. you have changed your mind, you are going to be voting for it to be voting for it tonight? i don't particularly likelj don't tonight? i don't particularly like” don't particularly like to be withdrawal agreement and i think the language could be more robust. i think we are in danger of losing brexit. even though i voted remain, my constituency voted for brexit. the uk voted for brexit. and we are in danger of losing it. if my collea g u es in danger of losing it. if my colleagues and, indeed, the rest of the commons don't support a prime minister's deal today. you said it is very similar, i don't agree. there are substantive new legal material changes with the advice.

for example, if the eu does act in bad faith, for example, delaying and delaying and delaying the past 12 months, then in the uk can now withdraw from the backstop on a permanent basis on a temporary basis. that was not there before, thatis basis. that was not there before, that is new that is legal and material. i hope the so—called style chamber of conservative lawyers will look at it again. of course, they are not constitutional lawyers, all of them, i hope they will look at this. i don't think the attorney general, who is independent minded, came on and would have made the case as strong as he did to the dup and the house as a whole if he didn't believe it. would you describe yours asa believe it. would you describe yours as a principled stance because you seem to say to me that what you are thinking of your constituents when you come and vote tonight? of course i have to reflect the will of my constituency. of course, but a lot of people out there are seeing a lot of people out there are seeing a lot of mps who they think are just acting for themselves. it is causing real anger. i can only answer

myself. i am reflecting the will of the country as a whole, and the referendum result, and also my constituency. also my view that is, to quote aristotle, politics is the art of the possible. yes, we could have got more on the withdrawal agreement, but in every negotiation, every international treaty, you don't win everything. you have to have concessions. this is raw politics today, this is hardcore politics today, this is hardcore politics and pragmatic politics. yes, if we hold out for everything that we want from the eu, do you know what? we will never get it. we will end up losing brexit. there are not the votes to push through a no deal. there are the votes, i believe, to extend article 50. all of those with delay brexit. i think they would frustrate brexit and, ultimately, leads to brexit is not happening. i don't think my constituents or association wants that, and i don't think that is in the national interest of the uk.m

there a sense here that this really is it? but this is make up your mind time? and are we now talking about raw politics taking over? exactly, thatis raw politics taking over? exactly, that is why i say to my colleagues, i understand your view, i know how principled you are, but at the end of the day, can you enjoy those principles and the luxury of those principles and the luxury of those principles on brexit if brexit is not delivered or is delayed and eventually frustrated altogether? it is not an ideal withdrawal agreement. the legal advice could be even more robust. but we have got a lot more than we previously had in january. i am lot more than we previously had in january. iam not lot more than we previously had in january. i am not enthusiastic about voting for this deal tonight, but i will do it because i believe it is in the national interest and reflects the will of the british people and the people of my constituency in shropshire. there are ten dup mps who are going to be crucial because of some conservative mps have said they are going to wait to see what they think are going to do. what do you think they will do?

i don't think they have decided. i think they wanted to hear the attorney general. i think nigel dodds asked a very reasonable question of the attorney general earlier. he asked a question about the position. i think tivoli people read too much into that question. i think there is all to play for. there were people who voted remain and brexit who have now decided, in order to deliver brexit, they need to get behind the prime and as the's deal. that is what i am doing, not enthusiastically, un—enthusiastically, but it is the right thing to be by the country and the right thing to do by the will of parliament, hopefully expressed later today. thank you for putting up later today. thank you for putting up with this dreadful weather to come in. you are watching afternoon live from the bbc. the uk civil aviation authority has, in the last half—hour, confirmed that all boeing 737 max 8 aircraft currently operating in the uk have been grounded. our news correspondent theo leggettjoins us now from the newsroom balcony. the ukjoinsa

the ukjoins a number of the uk joins a number of other countries with what is a major decision at this stage. absolutely, and one which i suspect is taken as much to reassure passengers as any other reason. there doesn't seem to bea other reason. there doesn't seem to be a bit ofa other reason. there doesn't seem to be a bit of a disconnect between the regulatory authorities here. the 737 max eight is certified by the federal aviation administration in the united states. that is almost rubber—stamped by the european union aviation safety agency and the civil aviation authority would normally accept those decisions. but the caa has gone out on a limb here. it has gone out, unilaterally, to ban at the plane from offering in uk airspace, let alone taking off or landing at uk airports. they say they have done as a precaution because no one happens that it what has happened to the euro that is not ethiopian airlines. that was the second accident that happened with this aircraft of which only a few hundred are in circulation at the

moment. it is a very big step but it doesn't actually affect that many aircraft because there are only a handful of them currently operating on routes in and out of the uk. 90 more in the business news throughout the afternoon but thank you very much. in a moment, we'll have all the business news, but first the headlines on bbc news. the attorney general delivers his brexit verdict, saying the legal risk remains unchanged but concedes that theresa may's last—minute agreements does "reduce the risk" of the uk being indefinitely trapped in the backstop. the president of the european commission, jean—claude juncker, warns mps threatening to reject the deal that there will be no third chance. the uk's civil aviation authority bans all flights by boeing 737 max aircraft from "arriving, departing or overflying uk airspace". it comes after sunday's crash

in ethiopia which killed 157 people. the boeing 737 max 8 plane, the model that was involved in the ethiopia air crash killing 157 people, has been banned from uk airspace by the uk civil aviation authority "as a precautionary measure". the measure will stop any commercial passenger flights from any operator arriving, departing or overflying uk airspace. nissan has said it is stopping production of its infiniti 030 sedan and the qx30 sport—utility vehicle by the middle of this year. nissan has said it is pulling infiniti out of western europe in order to focus on the us and china. the uk economy grew by 0.5% in january, according to the latest official figures. the office for national statistics

says over the three—month period to the end of january the economy grew byjust 0.2%. manufacturing output came in better than expected, despite concerns for the sector ahead of brexit. another warning over a no—deal brexit, this time from the uk logistics organisations which run the systems that ship all our imports and exports — names like hermes, dhl uk, maritime, and tandem transport. they have signed an open letter to the the prime minister, urging her to consider the needs of uk logistics companies and to rule out a no—deal brexit. let's ask them why. pauline bastidon is head of european policy and brexit at the freight transport association. why? | why? i think this letter to the prime minister is supposed to be a cry for help but also a wake—up call for the prime minister. we cannot hesitate any longer, and we certainly cannot send a message that no deal is ok. that would be

manageable. more information has come out lately from. to give you an example, on friday i received a 250 pages of guidance and so on from the uk government. we are receiving things as well from the french government and others. this is coming very late. to ask our members to, first of all, act on this basis, read everything, digests it, change all the processes in 15 working days or less, that is just not feasible. there are so many holes as well, so many issues where we are asking for clarity and we are not getting any a nswe rs clarity and we are not getting any answers at the moment. details of the new customs requirements and how they will work in practice, who is going to do that? how can you do it? what happens if you don't? goods that are currently on board ships from asia and other regions of the world, we still have no idea about ta riffs world, we still have no idea about tariffs being applied to these goods when they arrive after brexit. just give us an example of an individual

company who say, on april the 30th, imagining that brexit happens on march 29, this company wants to ship cargo to france, what kind of obstacles cargo to france, what kind of o bsta cles is cargo to france, what kind of obstacles is it going to face? say it isa obstacles is it going to face? say it is a lorry going over to france. if this company is a lorry company, they will need to make sure that their clients have filled out all their clients have filled out all the paperwork, electronic, make sure that they have the reference number, the reference number of the company, and they will need to make sure they have that, not just and they will need to make sure they have that, notjust for one shipment, but for all of the shipments on board their truck. you could have very easily more than 100 shipments on—board the truck, so you can imagine how complex this is going to be. then they will have to make sure that everything has been pre—lodged correctly with the right authorities. and they will then be told whether to go into an orange lane ora told whether to go into an orange lane or a green lane when they finally arrive in france. the system

is based on the premise that there would be a minority of trucks in the orange lane. but anything from scanning the wrong document to not having completed the formalities, may for just having completed the formalities, may forjust one shipment on board that struck... surely, sorry to interrupt, surely at that point, when we know it is going to be difficult, the customs officers, the whole structure, they will be pretty relaxed because they know they can't put down a barrier. they are going to be reasonably understanding, aren't they? in what could be a crisis situation? we are hoping that they will show some mercy, i suppose, and to be slightly more flexible on day one. but there is absolutely no guarantee they are going to do that. if you need any proof of that, just look at the strikes in france. this is proof that, sometimes, when the guidelines

from the national authority is that they have to do such and such and such and such a way, they the workers on the ground, the officials on the ground, decide otherwise. pa rt on the ground, decide otherwise. part of the reason they protest, this week it is partly for financial reasons, partly it is because they disagree with the guidance that they have to, basically, prioritise the fluidity of traffic instead of controls. 0k, thank you very much indeed. in other news, sales at struggling fashion chain french connection fell last year, as a result of the "difficult" trading conditions in the uk. like—for—like sales fell by 6.8% compared with the previous year, with declines both in store and online. but for the first time in seven years, the chain made a small profit of £100,000, compared to a loss of £2.1m. media giant news corp says google should be broken up to restore a level playing field

for media companies swamped by its "overwhelming" market power. the rupert murdoch—controlled group says google should be forced to seperate its search function from the rest of its business. and volkswagen has reported growing profits and revenues, despite its ‘dieselgate' emissions cheating scandal and the challenge of meeting tough new pollution tests. full—year operating profits at the german carmaker rose 6% to $13.7 billion, beating a nalysts' forecasts. just have a look at the markets. the ftse is up a quarter of a percent. the pound has fallen about1 cent this morning following the statement from geoffrey cox, the attorney general. more on that story that the uk has banned the boeing 737 max 8 from its airspace. to either travel company has said this, it has

confirmed it is grounding its boeing 737 max 8 planes. tui airways planes have been grounded following the decision from the uk regulatory authorities. they went on to say any customers due to fly home today on a boeing 737 max 8 from the holiday we flown back on another aircraft. customers due to travel in the coming days will also, it says, travel on holiday as planned on other aircraft. it adds that the safety a nd other aircraft. it adds that the safety and well—being of our customers and staff has remained our priority. that's all the business news. now it's time for a look at the weather with ben rich. good afternoon. storm gareth dominating our weather over the next 24—hour is. there could be quite significant disruption because of a combination of severe gales and heavy rain. we

have only seen quite a lot of rain, they have been flood warnings across parts of northern england and scotland. this is the weather system responsible, a beautiful tale of cloud here on the satellite picture. the strongest winds developing just to the south of this area of low pressure, this strike of cloud here has been bringing some really heavy rain. the radar picture shows this wet weather that has been going south—eastwards. a short sharp bursts of torrential downpours accompanied by squally winds. behind it, we see some snow over high ground in wales, northern england, a few fla kes ground in wales, northern england, a few flakes of snow reported elsewhere as well. there is some really cold air tucking in behind that band of rain. to the afternoon, a mix of sunshine and showers but showers becoming more widespread in the west. there are likely to be blizzards over the high ground in scotla nd blizzards over the high ground in scotland as temperatures pick up again. as we go into this evening, the winds will really start to strengthen across parts of northern ireland, southern and western scotland. they will seek wide gusts,

maybe even up to 80 mph for the north coast of northern ireland. very blustery across the isle of man and into northern england. wind gusts up to 60 mph in england. some of those heavy and brisk winds, wintry over high ground. really no way will be immune from some strong winds overnight, even down to the south coasts. wind gusts of air around 50 miles an hour. temperature through the night between 4—7 celsius. a very blustery start tomorrow. there will be blustery winds tomorrow. poor travelling conditions. northern ireland, the isle of man, northwestern, wales, the midlands, i think he will keep strong winds today. elsewhere, the wind is easing. sunshine and showers, the shower is to ease in many places by the afternoon. damages are a little bit, but bear in mind, it will be windy out there so may not feel as great as those numbers suggest. we moved from

wednesday to thursday, and here comes another frontal system. pretty strong winds with that. it stays very unsettled as we head towards the end of the week. we expect some spells of sunshine, yes, but there will also be some heavy and perhaps thundery showers. as you can see from the black wind arrows, some very gusty winds will stop you can keep up—to—date with the latest where you are on the bbc weather app and read the latest weather warnings on the bbc weather website. that is all from me for now.