welcome to bbc news — i'm christian fraser in westminster. injust an hour's time, theresa may faces the prospect of another parliamentary defeat. back in the commons after late—night talks in strasbourg, the prime minister claimed she'd achieved the assurances mps had asked for. the danger for those of us who want to deliver, to have faith with the british public and deliver on their vote for brexit, is that if this vote is not passed tonight, if this deal is not passed, then brexit could be lost. but the mood of the day has been set by the attorney general who believes the risk of the uk being tied to eu rules after brexit is still there. let me make it clear. the legal risk as i set it out in my letter of the 13th of november remains unchanged.

following that guidance, two crucial groups appear to be deserting her again — her parliamentary partners, the dup of northern ireland and the pro brexit conservative members of the european research group. both say they'll vote down the deal. hello, welcome to a special edition of bbc news. we are live in wesminster, just an hour away from the parliamentary vote — a second meaningful vote — on theresa may's brexit deal. the prime minister believes she has achieved the legal changes that parliament had demanded. "this is the moment, this is the time", she told the mps this afternoon. but do those who opposed her deal

the first time around think the changes go far enough? or will they reject it for a second time? and where will that leave the brexit process? we will have some of those answers in the next hour. let's begin by showing you the motion the mp‘s will be voting on this evening. they are being asked to approve five documents in all. of course, the negotiated withdrawal agreement which remember is legally binding and sets out the terms of the divorce — and the political declaration, that goes with it, which spells out what the future uk eu relationship might look like. remember the key sticking point for many mp‘s was the irish backstop — which would prevent a hard border between the republic of ireland and northern ireland, if the eu and uk fail to agree a trade deal. there were three new documents agreed in strasbourg last night — which mrs may hoped would help her win tonight's vote. a legal instrument which emphasises that both sides will work to avoid implementing the irish backstop.

a unilateral declaration from the uk side sets out when the uk would consider seeking an end to the backstop — how it would trigger arbitration if it believes the eu is not acting in good faith. and a joint statement which commits both sides to working together, separate to the talks on the trade deal, to find alternative arrangements to that backstop, by december 2020. the last time the prime minister put the withdrawal agreement to parliament, injanuary, it was defeated by a margin of 230 votes. that was a record defeat. crucial to the outcome of the vote tonight will be how mp‘s interpret the legal advice given by the attorney general geoffrey cox. this morning in a written summary he said that in spite of the new legal assurances that in his view reduced the risk of the uk becoming stuck in the backstop — the advice he gave in november "remains unchanged". the uk would have no internationally lawful means of leaving the backstop

without eu agreement. here's some of what the attorney general had to say a little earlier. let me make it clear. the legal risk, as i set it out in my letter of the 13th of november, remains unchanged. the question for the house is whether, in the light of these improvements, as a politicaljudgment, the house should now enter into those arrangements. a lawyer first and a politician second, said the attorney general. the attorney general‘s advice was a huge blow to the prime minister — and then came this from the leader of the dup arlene foster. in her statement she said... "we recognise that the prime minister has made limited progress in her discussions with the european union. however in our view sufficient progress has not been achieved at this time. having carefully considered the published material, it is clear

that the risks remain that the uk would be unable to lawfully exit the backstop were it to be activated." here's how theresa may has responded. this is the moment, and this is the time. time for us to come together, back this motion and get the deal done. because only then can we get on with what we came here to do. what we were sent here to do. each and every one of us came into politics because we have sincerely held views about how to build a better britain. some have spent their political careers campaigning against the european union and in favour of restoring sovereignty to this parliament. for others, membership of the eu is one of the foundations of their vision of the uk's place in the world. but we also came here to serve.

we cannot serve our country by overturning a democratic decision of the british people. we cannot serve by prolonging a debate the british people now wish to see settled. the prime minister battling through with a very sore voice this afternoon. jeremy corbyn and the labour front bench will not be supporting the deal this evening. here's what the leader of the opposition makes of it. after three months of running down the clock, the prime minister has, despite very extensive delays, achieved not a single change to the withdrawal agreement. not one single word has changed. it is a bad deal that will damage our economy, undermine our industries, irre pa rably harm our manufacturing sector, risk our national health service, damage our public services, and harm our living standards. because, mr speaker, it opens up the possibility of a race to the bottom.

a bonfire of rights and protections, provides no certainty on trade and customs arrangements in the future, that will risk people's living standards. jeremy corbyn speaking a little earlier. this is the scene in the house of commons. there is just over 50 there isjust over 50 minutes there is just over 50 minutes of the debate there is just over 50 minutes of the d e bate left there is just over 50 minutes of the debate left to run. quite empty, but the benches will start to fill as we get closer to 7pm. we have just been told that the brexit secretary, steve barclay, will be closing the debate for the government this evening. iam pleased debate for the government this evening. i am pleased to say right now. . . i'm joined now by anand menon ? uk in at the daily mirror. a changing europe and pippa crerar — political editor at the daily mirror. the statement from geoffrey cox was all the more dramatic today. 0vernight, many people presumed he must have been consulted about what

was coming from the eu and must have approved it. but, he has really played the role of the lawyer today. yes, there was certainly speculation and rumours coming out of brussels yesterday, that there had been various proposals put on the table and he may take them back to the cabinet, having various conversations over the weekend first of the key cabinet members involved in the brexit negotiations, geoffrey cox is one of those, and they had rejected them. we assumed that when she finally produced this deal last night that geoffrey cox had signed up night that geoffrey cox had signed up to it. so it was a surprise this morning that when he came out with the advice he did, it followed labour's shadow brexit secretary saying he couldn't see, as a lawyer, how geoffrey cox could ever say the changes have been significant enough to change as legal advice. the point that geoffrey cox made was that even though ultimately, the legal advice hadn't change significantly, it was a political decision, and that is what it now comes down to, it is really about where people sit on

theresa may's brexit deal and which way they will vote. the legal nitty—gritty has been the affair of the afternoon, but now, we come to the afternoon, but now, we come to the political crux of it. this is raw politics that we will be watching tonight. very much so. you saw withjeremy watching tonight. very much so. you saw with jeremy corbyn there that the opposition are going to make hay with this and oppose this. the problem that the prime minister has is that everyone thinks they ideal outcome is within reach. jeremy corbyn thinks that if the prime minister goes down by a big bout, there is a potential for a general election on the horizon, which is what he wants. hard brexiteers think that if they play their cards right i know deal brexit may be within grass, which is what they want. the referendum crowd think that mps terrified by the prospect of a no deal will have another referendum with the british people. all options still seem to be on the table, meaning that no's deal will get defeated quite badly tonight, i think, by a defeated quite badly tonight, i think, bya host defeated quite badly tonight, i think, by a host of people who want to do something else instead but

cannot quite summon the majority. to do something else instead but cannot quite summon the majoritylj detected this afternoon a bit of a split, a softer approach from a jacob rees—mogg, who is certainly trying to weigh up in his mind of whether he votes against this, he would lose brexit altogether, or whether, because article 50 is set down the statue, we will end up with brexit anyway. sunshine that there has been a meeting with the erg and house of commons, and mps coming out of that are suggesting that the majority of erg, an undefined group, difficult to know how many numbers it would involve, but they would in fa ct it would involve, but they would in fact oppose theresa may's deal. the point about jacob rees—mogg fact oppose theresa may's deal. the point aboutjacob rees—mogg earlier is that he was suggesting that the erg would oppose the deal unless brexit was at threat. from my understanding, from talking to some brexiteers today if they don't think they have reached that point yet. there seems to be an acceptance, the last couple of weeks, after conversations with ministers, that no's deal could come back a third

time, believe it or not, and that would be the moment in which everybody would finally have to make their final everybody would finally have to make theirfinal move. everybody would finally have to make their final move. 0k, everybody would finally have to make their final move. ok, so, we are looking closely at the numbers, 230 votes it went down by the first time in january. if she votes it went down by the first time injanuary. if she narrows out votes it went down by the first time in january. if she narrows out and get it under 100, would that be seen asa get it under 100, would that be seen as a success get it under 100, would that be seen as a success by the government and with that enable her to go back for a third time and have another go?|j think a third time and have another go?” think we live in a world where definitions of success and failure are pliable. at this point, if it was under 100, downing street would quietly celebrate that. i think there is a case we have made that significantly more than that, given the positions of the erg and the dup. the question is then, what can you do with that? will the eu look ata you do with that? will the eu look at a majority of 100 and say there is no point in talking to her again, because she will not get this through. will parliament then start thinking, look, this deal is essentially dead, we need to take control of this process. parliament

might try to assert its own control of the process, by saying to the prime minister, we want votes on other options. so yes, she might keep it down in proportions, but in downing street, they will think that if they shrink the margin, they will try again. as pippa says, one of the problems is the prime minister faces is that we never quite reach deadline day. everyone in parliament knows they can be an extension, so fio knows they can be an extension, so no one thinks this is the final moment. you say there is a deadline day, because jean—claude juncker spells it out last night for us. in the immediate term, that would be the immediate term, that would be the 23rd of may, that is when they head towards european elections, so head towards european elections, so he wants sun deal negotiated by then. i am just wondering whether theresa may tries to take back the process , theresa may tries to take back the process, rather than letting parliament to put down an amendment for no deal and an extension, does she try and wrestle back the process and is the executive at an emotion in the next two days? the suggestion this afternoon is that is what will

happen. whether it is defeated by 100 votes or 200 votes, or somewhere in between, she will make a statement, point of order, what she had done previously, and tell mps what her plans are. from that moment, she can say, we are going to propose a delay ourselves in order to try and reach some sort of deal, and thereby avoid a more humiliating defeat over the next couple of days. what happens with the no deal though it is quite interesting, because thatis it is quite interesting, because that is potentially extremely devising for the prime minister. she cannot really win, because the two wings on her party have such strong opinions on it. we have to watch what her plan will be for that. but you can see her taking control of the extension process.” you can see her taking control of the extension process. i was listening to one of the main brexiteers of the erg this afternoon. he was pretty foolish about where they are at the moment. this is part of the erg's debate, article 50 is a set down in statute. article 50 is a set down in statute.

a motion, such as what we might have tomorrow, doesn't refer to that fa ct. tomorrow, doesn't refer to that fact. how does a prime minister, who has said repeatedly that she will live on the 29th of march, how will she take that off the table? there would have to be a vote. she would have to get eu approval first, that may not be forthcoming, and once the eu 27 had signed up to the extension, presumably at the summit next week, that there would have to be an amendment. in the next two months and ten days, she has to revoke article 50. can she do that without going to the people? can she extend into the european elections? then we are into the whole conundrum of whether we put forward any piece for the election? ultimately you ta ke for the election? ultimately you take no deal off the table by voting for something else. if she wants to revoke, she needs to pass legislation in parliament to revoke the triggering of article 50. not convinced there is a majority for that. the problem is that there isn't obviously a majority for anything. at the moment, because everyone knows she will lose this vote, there is a lot of scope for

people just making a statement. there are a lot of tory mps who have ambitions to succeed theresa may when she stands down. 0ne ambitions to succeed theresa may when she stands down. one way to appeal to tory members is to make it clear that you're comfortable with fio clear that you're comfortable with no deal. so there is a lot of gameplaying going on behind us and i think it is only when we get to the moment when people start to think, 0k, look, this is a deadline, the brexiteers and started to think that if we don't pass this deal, they might vote in favour of a referendum, everything will come to a head, and it doesn't seem to be like we are there yet. the question is whether the prime minister can hang on until we get close enough to that deadline. have you two heard of the spoiler alert? you are not supposed to pre—empt the vote, you are supposed to build up the cliffhanger! something might happen tonight, but maybe not. thank you for joining tonight, but maybe not. thank you forjoining us. we can now speak to our europe editor katya adler who is in strasbourg. she was there last night watching

what the prime minister was doing. last night, there was all sorts of speculation that this might be enough. now we don't think it will be, so what will the reaction of the eu be? of course, disappointment. we just had a game from the german chancellor, angela michael, she is anxious to avoid a no—deal brexit, and she has put herself in front of the cameras. —— angela merkel. she has been saying that the legally binding assurances that the eu gave you are important and significant. but behind the scenes, eu officials we re but behind the scenes, eu officials were aware, they probably would not be enough to appease hardliners. as you say, what next? if you ask eu diplomats, they say they have come to the end of the road. jean—claude juncker here in strasbourg yesterday, sitting next to the prime minister, said that as it from our side, you have a negotiated brexit deal. you now have extra assurances, there will be no extra, extra, extra

assurances. but, we know eu leaders would prefer to avoid a no—deal brexit weather now, at the end of an extension, or whatever may come next. theresa may comes face—to—face with all 27 eu leaders next week at a summit in brussels. might she be tempted to push them for more? whatever they say now, we don't know exactly how they will respond. until she does ask them. at this stage in the brexit process, whether it is germany or france or ireland, all eu countries have different priorities. although they speak with one voice when it comes to protecting the european single market, and that is very important if you go asking the eu for changes. thank you for joining us. we can now speak to our chief political correspondent vicki young who is in central lobby in the houses of parliament. she will be there for us during the evening gathering responses of mps as they come out of the lobby for us. as they come out of the lobby for us. what is the mood down there?” have been talking to conservative

mps and ministers all day, and their view is pretty bleak. they don't think there is much chance at all of the deal getting through tonight. some are speculating whether a defeat of 150 could be seen as a significant improvement on last time, could that be spun as some kind of progress? there are others even speculating about whether theresa may can survive, given this is the deal that she has been working on for two years, this is her aversion and vision of brexit. it looks like it will be defeated heavily once again. let's talk to oui’ heavily once again. let's talk to ourformer minister who heavily once again. let's talk to our former minister who resigned heavily once again. let's talk to ourformer minister who resigned a couple of weeks ago. what do you think will happen tonight? are you still backing the deal?” think will happen tonight? are you still backing the deal? i voted for the agreement last time and will do again tonight. i gave the prime minister my word that i would. for me, the main reason for doing so is while i am not massively enthusiastic about the agreement and ican see enthusiastic about the agreement and i can see the problems with it, i am concerned about what would happen

next if we don't get an agreement through. i am worried, in particular, that parliament hasn't got the courage collectively to vote with no deal and we may therefore see a long delay to our departure from the eu and possibly it's never happening at all. i think that would bea happening at all. i think that would be a catastrophic end to this saga. many of your pro—brexit colleagues who do not agree with you. they say they do not fear that happening, they do not fear that happening, they think that in the end, we could still leave with no deal, whether thatis still leave with no deal, whether that is at the end of this month or in two months‘ time after an extension. are they wrong to think that? everyone has to make up their owfi that? everyone has to make up their own mind, we have had this debate, and there is almost a sense of cabin fever on the brexit debate. we have been at this now for two years, arguing about this particular deal for the best part of six months now. i think each individual mp has to make up theirown i think each individual mp has to make up their own mind. i understand those that are voting against tonight, i understand their reasons why. what parliament requested from

the eu as regards an exit mechanism from the circle backstop was not at all unrealistic or unreasonable. most international treaties would have an exit clause, sol most international treaties would have an exit clause, so i can understand their position and i respect their position, but for me, the wider political risks of not having an agreement are way more heavily for me and that is why i'm voting for it. where it does leave theresa may? we are assuming she will be defeated heavily tonight, this is her vision of brexit and it will be defeated. how can she survive that? we are not in normal political times at the moment, obviously, we have a hung parliament and both parties in quite a bit of difficulty over this issue. we are wrestling with a very big decision that we have taken as a country. i happen to think it is the right decision, despite the turbulence we are going through, once we get to the other side, assuming we do eventually have the courage to leave the eu, things will settle down and

we won't look back and will not regret the decision we took. but because parliament is so divided at the moment, and too many people are unreconciled to the decision that was taken in the referendum, it has proved particularly difficult. the next stage, the future relationship, could be even more difficult. with the parliamentary numbers, it could be even more difficult. a lot of people talking about the possibility ofa people talking about the possibility of a general election at.” people talking about the possibility of a general election at. i think we need to try to find a quicker way to settle this debate and negotiation, sooner settle this debate and negotiation, sooner rather than later. i think the idea that this isjust the end of phase one, as are some people are calling it, we might then have several years more of brexit argument, is more than most people can't stomach. i think that we need to now start thinking imaginatively about ways that we could settle this thing faster, within a matter of months, so that we do leave the eu

on time, but to do so in a way that parliament can get behind and hopefully end the groundhog day of brexit debate. just to be clear, you‘re talking about a closer european economic area, nor why style relationship? i have always been clear and made clear in my resignation letter that i have been open to relying on our existing membership of the eea is a quicker, more efficient exit mechanism and we may need to return to looking at issues such as that. -- norway-style relationship. less than one hour to go until this crucial vote. by our reckoning, around 20—25 conservatives have changed their view, that will not help a lot. no thank you forjoining us. interesting to hear that what we need is a clean break and starting again. let me bring you this tweet from michel barnier who has been watching the debate. he says...

i‘m joined now by anand menon ? uk in a changing europe and pippa crerar — political editor at the daily mirror. this has been one of the things at the erg are putting forward, maybe you can buy transition for a year. george eustice saying we can live without a deal and then leave with the trade agreement we won. but we cannot have that cliff edge, but michel barnier is saying that the only way you can get that is to sign up only way you can get that is to sign up to this. michel barnier is a spot on, the only legal mechanism the eu to have — — on, the only legal mechanism the eu to have —— to give us a transition is by the terms of article 50, so if we assign a withdrawal agreement under the terms of article 50, that gives them the sex ability to give us gives them the sex ability to give usa gives them the sex ability to give us a transition by a majority vote

quickly and easily. —— —— gives them the ability. it requires the unanimous ratification by the parliament as well, it will be harder, slower and there still isn't an obvious legal path for the eu to give us the holding pattern of a transition over article 50.” give us the holding pattern of a transition over article 50. i was watching the brexit committee exchanges this afternoon, an awful lot of talk about how you can construe that the eu is acting in bad faith. that is a subjective principle. there may be differences over whether the eu wants to take the brexit process. it seemed to me just watching it, this comes back to why there is objections to the withdrawal agreement, is the point that the eu wants a customs union, which is where the backstop is effectively taking the uk and the uk doesn‘t want a customs union. it is one of theresa may‘s red lines. doesn‘t want a customs union. it is one of theresa may's red linesm

is interesting because the backstop is interesting because the backstop is the sort of arrangement at many on the labour side would be quite happy having longer terms, permanent membership of the customs union. there are hints in the political declaration as to what the future relationship might be, based on a starting point of the backstop, which hasn‘t been picked up on in terms of going for it. i think one thing is very important to remember is that of course, just a withdrawal agreement is being voted on tonight was not the tough business is the stuff coming up next, what we what the future relationship to look like. it is obviously a huge amount of division in the house about it. but you mentioned earlier you didn‘t think there was anyone a single route through this at the moment. i think that there is potentially some sort of coalition that could be drawn up, cross party, for a softer brexit, which involves being in the customs union. you might need to be careful about the language you use, the comments market proposal, which suggests a temporary membership,

which lucy powell mentioned and so on, a temporary customs union in the first instance. it is not a massive difference than labour‘s proposal. it is designed to get conservative mps and backbenchers on board, so i think, who knows what will happen over the next couple of days, and we might have a meaningful doubt and come back for a third time. but the focus will shift onto the future relationship and it is interesting hearing today in the commons, talking about the prime minister potentially tweaking the political declaration in ways that can give labour mps more assurance that she has an eye on a future relationship that could work for them, giving mps more of a safe and potentially that isa more of a safe and potentially that is a way through this for them at. ironically, with her bringing back last night the three documents they did, spelling out there had to be alternative arrangements to the backstop, whether that was actually taking her away from those labour

mps that might back ideal, because it takes her away from that customs union. on one level, this is surreal, because the backstop was only negotiating triumph for the prime minister. the problem she faces and the reason why i am sceptical about what pepper says, for avery labour vote she wins by going softer, she runs the risk of losing a tory. —— what pippa says. that is where the numbers will be close, the dangers she faces is the very real danger that the split in her party will become unmanageable. there are so many people in the conservative party who not only want brexit but want nothing to do with the single market or customs union. the beauty of the backstop from the prime minister's perspective was that it was a customs union without calling at that. so she managed to bring this thing home, it was a backstop, and it is also worth bearing in mind that many eu member states hate the backstop, because they see it as giving us and particularly northern ireland a

comparative advantage of being in a customs union without all the single market, which might allow us to undercover and might make us, certainly northern ireland, manufacturing money. there are member states out there who are desperate that we don't end up in the backstop. but that doesn't seem to be enough to persuade the mp5 behind us that the eu will be as desperate as we are to find another solution. it is a pointer that often gets ignored that that you don‘t wa nt to gets ignored that that you don‘t want to be in the backstop. thank you forjoining us. lets quickly show you the house of commons with about 30 minutes on the debate at the moment. you can see that there are not many people there at the moment, but i dare say it will fill up moment, but i dare say it will fill up in the course of the next half an hour. just to reiterate that we will have closing arguments from both labour and conservative members, and stephen barclay will be sparing the prime minister‘s voice and he will

be closing the debate for the conservatives this evening. we‘re here in westminster and that‘s our focus — but to get a sense of the how today‘s events are viewed outside of the political spotlight, our deputy political editorjohn pienaar has spent the day in the town of luton — which voted leave in the 2016 referendum — and spoke to people there about tonight‘s vote. it‘s been hard, it‘s been painful, did brexit have to be this tough? down at storm gym in leave voting luton, i found some, not all, blame europe. do you think, as some say, that we are being bullied by europe? that they are being intransigent? definitely, yeah. it is a bully boy tactics, perhaps. bully boy tactics? what do you think? how would you expect them to be any different? at the end of the day, it's like someone chooses to leave my gym, i'm still going to do what i do, i'm going to get on with my business, that's what the eu is doing. here, nothing is easy, except maybe blaming politicians for the painful slog of brexit.

too easy? it is notjust bickering and point scoring, these are genuine, deep differences among our mps. this small gym, multinationals, they are trying to make decisions about how the business moves forward. investor confidence comes from that. they should be working together. if you have a problem at home with your family, you sit down as you work it out and you deal with it. hopefully, that is how it should be. 0na largerscale, that is what they should be doing with the country. changing, adapting, evolving, all businesses must do that, like this old family hat maker down the road. but ask the boss, he is another one feeling the strain of uncertainty. a keen brexiteer would say it is going to settle down. i‘m sure it will, but when? they have all had us dangling on a wire for too long. make a decision, let us know where we are going, the confidence from that will return.

as a businessman and a father, your daughter obviously loves this business, how would it be if she couldn‘t carry on? it would be dreadful. if there isn‘t a marketplace for my daughter to be able to continue the business, it‘s going to end. my generation have then let the next generation down, because it is over. 0n the shop floor, janet‘s more upbeat, looking forward to her birthday on march the 29th, brexit day. she told me her boss worries too much. everyone's going on everyone else's bandwagon. someone says it's bad and then everyone else joins along with it. and i think we should just wait and see. and it‘s going to ruin your birthday then? it will, if we stay in, yeah. i'm looking forward to celebrating my birthday and coming out of europe, lam. i'll be happy. what do you think? give me a verdict. it is a good, all—round hat... he would say that, choosing is sometimes hard. britain chose brexit, but what kind and when? answering that will take some time.

i‘m joined now by the telegraph‘s brexit editor dia chakravarty. and sebastian payne — whitehall correspondent for the financial times. you have been covering that erg meeting across the road, their final meeting across the road, their final meeting before the vote. what mood are you picking up? generally that nothing is changed once again, the erg are going to vote against the deal tonight in general but there are people in the room who have changed their mind for the greg hands, the former trade minister, has said no deal will not happen and so we need to face the fact that the deal set forward by theresa may is the hardest brexit we are going to get. so some mps, about 22, now on board with the prime minister. the

issueis board with the prime minister. the issue is that is nowhere near enough. by friday at this rate she might have enough people but she has got 30 minutes so i do not think it is going to happen. most brexiteers are not changing their position from earlier in the year. getting any reaction from ministers about where they‘re headed? reaction from ministers about where they're headed? well passions are running high, a huge amount of anger against the erg, had a chance at brexit done in a sensible and gradual weight, says one, and they are too brain—dead to realising that. they have a pathological need for a grievance. that is someone serving within the government very angry that people are not coming on site with the theresa may deal. pathological need for grievance, that shows the divisions in the conservative party. not a happy

family. some people in the erg, who seem family. some people in the erg, who seem unable to vote for this deal, they feel they cannot support it and pa rt of they feel they cannot support it and part of that is because they do not see part of that is because they do not see it as a gradual movement towards brexit but as a trap laid where we are going to be trapped in either the backstop scenario or a permanent customs union forever where the rights to make deals with the rest of the world i'd just done to the eu and as faras of the world i'd just done to the eu and as far as they are concerned thatis and as far as they are concerned that is no brexit at all for the they also have concerns about the level of intervention of the european court of justice level of intervention of the european court ofjustice because there was an exchange between stephen bagley and hilary benn in the committee earlier where it is quite clear that when we take our grievances as a country to the panel created to see whether the eu and uk are both negotiating in good faith, if we cannot reach a trade deal and

therefore cannot come out of the backstop who will decide that and it seems the european court ofjustice would have a strong influence on that decision. that is also uncomfortable for some brexiteers in the erg so all these passions at play and some people in the erg would also feel responsible if brexitjust became would also feel responsible if brexit just became a would also feel responsible if brexitjust became a complete mess. so they are also trying to do their best to get the best deal. that lack of faith on both sides, that is demonstrated by michel barnier, we had a message from him saying this seems to be a misconception in the house that you can get an extension. he says that that comes from the withdrawal agreement. brussels always say there is going to be no more talking but given the package theresa may has put together, there will not be anything else so if she

is defeated this evening the idea that there will be more concessions ido that there will be more concessions i do not think it is realistic. i think some mps have not quite grasp the fact that this is the table. and the fact that this is the table. and the idea of gradual transition, the government are saying that this is the hardest brexit we are going to get given the parliamentary arithmetic and that this is a minority government. and if you want to risk a softer brexit than vote against this, we may go into a customs union or single market or extend transition, all these things would be on the table if theresa may is defeated tonight sol would be on the table if theresa may is defeated tonight so i think the message from the government and we heard that from stephen barclay is back this and get brexit and we can get on with our lives. but i do not think that is going to happen. for the moment, thank you very much. this is the scene in

the house of commons. stephen barclay has taken a seat for that this is just the minutes before the vote, the whips will be going around those still in the lobbies and urging them to back the government. putting the thumbscrews on and saying that this is as good as it gets for brexiteers for that but how many of them are going to ta ke but how many of them are going to take the government side up by all accou nts take the government side up by all accounts it is heading for another damaging defeat this evening. a lot of conservative benches you can see fairly empty steel. the labour side on the right starting to fill up. we can now speak to our chief political correspondent vicki young who is in central lobby in the houses of parliament. since that legal advice from the attorney general was issued this morning and then the dup said they would not back the government and then in the last hour that a group of conservative mps the european research group, the suggestion that most of them would also vote against

the deal, it has been clear that there is no way theresa may can get this through tonight and the question is how much will she be defeated by and can she survive another huge defeat her main plank of government business that she has been working on for the past two yea rs. been working on for the past two years. the justice been working on for the past two years. thejustice minister is with me now. it looks pretty bleak for the prime minister and for those like you who want the deal to go through. we've not had the vote yet but you are right, reports coming out suggest we would not win and it would be surprising than if we did. so from my point of view it is heartbreaking because i think we need to move on, people voted to leave, we had a deal negotiated over two years which gives us certainty and a transition period. if we do not have a deal then there is no transition and we would at the end of this month leave the eu with nothing in place. there been talk

about wto thames, which is misleading. these terms do not work in the way people are suggesting. we would find ourselves with business investment leaving, and it is com pletely investment leaving, and it is completely unnecessary. this is a good brexit deal and even now 20 minutes before the vote, i‘m begging people to vote for the deal. with 17 days to go until brexit, something many of your colleagues combined for four long time, they clearly that you are so bad, david davis sang that sting and would even be better. the problem is notjust people who are hard brexiteers who want no deal but also we are not quite sure what labour are doing either. jeremy corbyn is basically in favour of a customs union deal which is similar to the deal set forward by the prime minister and it seems that right at

the end of march people still seem to believe that they can reach different options for that they cannot all be right some want to remain in the eu, some want no deal, in the end we need to compromise and understand that the country is split right down the middle. and the only way of resolving this is to show some empathy. some have said to his mate should have realised earlier that a group in her party wanted no deal and they were never going to vote for anything that she managed to negotiate with the eu. should she have reached out to them earlier than she did? i think the prime minister has tried to do that and i think you are right and there is a problem with people pushing for no deal because no form of deal would appeal to them in that case. but also on the labour side, whatjeremy corbyn is describing and what the prime minister has negotiated are

very similar. the disagreement is about a non—legally binding document, it does not matter if you wa nt to document, it does not matter if you want to end up as norway, or canada, you have to go through the withdrawal agreement. this is sitting down at the table before you even get the menu. parliament seems to be unable to even sit down at the table and begin the process and that isa table and begin the process and that is a concern. how much is this caught up with theresa may and her leadership, this is very much her deal, we are looking probably at a massive defeat and some are saying she cannot survive this.” massive defeat and some are saying she cannot survive this. i do not believe that, i‘m a passionate advocate for this deal and i think it is the only solution and they are the alternatives are so much worse. a second referendum would be deeply divisive. trying to lurch into no deal would be destructive, and

everything except for this deal is worse i do not think the problem is her leadership, i think it isjust structurally leading an institution you have been in for a0 years where you have been in for a0 years where you are connected from every direction is unbelievably tough and it would not matter who the prime minister was pulled up at the end you have to compromise and it seems we are a country that does not want to compromise. well keir starmer, the shadow brexit secretary, is on his feet. so much so that for many members of this house, not least members of this house, not least members opposite, this has become a matter of trust. these were promises made by the prime minister, to them, to parliament, and to the country. i have repeatedly raised the question

of expectations. i have repeatedly raised the concern that the prime minister was raising expectations that she could not fulfil. and when isaid that she could not fulfil. and when i said that last week in the week before members opposite challenge me that i was not optimistic enough when i said i do not think there will be legally binding changes. it is now obvious that the expectations having been raised, have not been fulfilled. 0n the promises had not been kept. amongst the problems for the prime minister and for the government has been that they have been living day—to—day, week to week, avoiding defeat today by promising something tomorrow. that is what happened on the 10th of december when the vote was pulled. avoiding defeat promising assurances on the backstop. it is what happened on the backstop. it is what happened on the backstop. it is what happened on the 29th ofjanuary. when the

government voted for the so—called brady amendment, requiring that the backstop be replaced. it happened on the 12th of february when that promise was made about legally binding changes. and it happened two weeks ago when facing possible defeat on a crucial moment, and a moment emotion two weeks ago, the promise was made we would have the meaningful vote today, a vote on no deal tomorrow and a vote on extension the day after. they were all promises made to avoid defeat today, a promise for tomorrow. but as the vote tonight is likely to show, today has caught up with tomorrow. there can be no more buying time. i appreciate the last za buying time. i appreciate the last 24 hours prime minister has tried to argue that she has delivered on the promises, but there are significant

changes. but that claim has been tested in argument in this house. there was always the right to suspend the backstop under the withdrawal act if the arbitration panel found a breach of bad faith. a temporary suspension, that was not new, it has been there since the 25th of november. there was always the commitment that the backstop would not have to be replicated, that was there from the 14th of january ina that was there from the 14th of january in a letter from donald tusk andjean january in a letter from donald tusk and jean claude juncker. and the announcement that the latter is legally binding was made last night but the prime minister on the 14th of january but the prime minister on the 14th ofjanuary made but the prime minister on the 14th of january made it but the prime minister on the 14th ofjanuary made it clear that the letters had legal force back then for the first vote. legal force, legally binding, that is the difference, the only difference. that claim has been tested in this

debate and the attorney general delivered his opinion earlier, the key conclusion of paragraph 19 of his advice being that there is no internationally lawful means of exiting the backstop saved by the agreement. he could not have been clearer. the attorney general made much clearer the difference between political and legal issues but the problem for the prime minister is that she promised legal changes. the father of the house challenged the leader of the opposition on the question of the backstop and rightly so question of the backstop and rightly so andl question of the backstop and rightly so and i make it clear that we have always accepted the need for a backstop, nobody likes the backstop, but it is inevitable. but as the letter from donald tusk and junko junko makes clear, the tool agreement, a political agreement, junko makes clear, the tool agreement, a politicalagreement, a pa rt of agreement, a politicalagreement, a part of the same negotiating package. what i put to the leader of the opposition is the only things that were settling with this vote is

the deal we have got on citizens‘ rights, the money that we l and the irish backstop. that is the only thing resolved if we pass this withdrawal agreement today. i‘m still struggling to understand what the objection is of the labour party to any of those three. i engage with that point, it is an important point andl that point, it is an important point and i have dealt with it a number of times. i have made it clear on a numberof times. i have made it clear on a number of occasions that the labour party recognises the need for the backstop. the problem is this. it is there in the heart of the letter from donald tusk and jaco junko when they say the withdrawal agreement on they say the withdrawal agreement on the political declaration are part of the same negotiating package and if anyone has read the legislation that we are voting under tonight they will appreciate that the government cannot move forward unless both the withdrawal agreement

and the political declaration together are voted on tonight. so it isa together are voted on tonight. so it is a cheap point for people to say since you accept there is a backstop you should vote for this tonight and i will not accept that. mr speaker, it is notjust the technical fact that there was still agreement on political declaration have to be voted through together, it is also the fact that what has happened today and looking at the promises it is as much about trust and substance. i have never doubted the difficulty of the task facing the prime minister, or the weight that she has gone about the task that she has had and she has been right to refuse to listen to those who are casual and complacent about the need to avoid a hard border in northern ireland. but the reality is that he'll the prime minister has put forth before the house is deeply

flawed. the future relationship document is flimsy and fake. it is an option paper, it is the blandest of brexit's. i had with the prime minister said today and she said it before, about not being able to negotiate a trade agreement with the eu untilwe negotiate a trade agreement with the eu until we have left and that is right. but she knows and i know what she promised. a comprehensive and detailed political declaration ready to be implemented that is why it was called an implementation period and not a transition period. and that was a commitment made by brexit secretaries. keir starmer closing the arguments for the opposition labour party. we will have the point of view of the government later. keir starmer saying that she has co nsta ntly keir starmer saying that she has constantly raised expectations, promises had not been kept, and this

is essential tenet of her legislative programme, the little agreement. if it goes down tonight again for agreement. if it goes down tonight againfora agreement. if it goes down tonight again for a second time, how its position still tenable? it is a good question and i think everyone assumed that if you lose a budget or assumed that if you lose a budget or a main piece of your legislation, thatis a main piece of your legislation, that is to mean the end of the government but thanks to this call, this thing called the fixed term parliament act, parliament can only end when there it is a specific vote saying there is no confidence in this government. she could resign or be pushed out by her party but her party tried to get rid of her and could not so now she is safe as leader until december. so she might be forced out by the cabinet but that seems unlikely. so i think she will just keep stumbling that seems unlikely. so i think she willjust keep stumbling on the question is what she will do next about her brexit deal which has twice been shut down by the house of commons. can she bring it back for a

third time and hoped success? well andrew neil has his special when the vote is on, he said earlier that neville chamberlain on the norway vote before the second world war, he won that by 80 votes and still had to go. she lost for the first time by 230, perhaps a similar number tonight, and stays? how many times have we come here and said this is it for her, the end of the road for the best no way that she can stay on any longer and she keeps winning back this comment this lazarus —like figure who keeps being resurrected. but part of the reason why she continues to stay is also because there is no unity within the cabinet, no one few and no one wants to the that has now been created by brexit. perhaps selfishly a lot of people would think let her deal with the mess, let‘s see where this goes and then when there is some kind of

resolution we were coming and seem a bit more statesman—like. resolution we were coming and seem a bit more statesman-like. let'sjust go to stephen barclay. it delivers the certainty that business needs, the certainty that business needs, the guarantees that our citizens are seeking, in office protections on workers' rights and environmental standards. and on gibraltar as the chief minister himself has said on many occasions, the prime minister has been absolutely clear that we stand behind british sovereignty for gibraltar and that will never change. above all a vote for the deal tonight will deliver a wider global message that when this country votes, respecting strongly held differences of opinion, it is parliament that acts on the public vote. in recent weeks the prime

ministerand vote. in recent weeks the prime minister and senior members of the government have engaged widely from trade unionists like len mccluskey, to businesses, to eu leaders, and to many colleagues across the house, even on one many colleagues across the house, even on one occasion when he finally got round to that, with the leader of the opposition. tonight the government presents a package of measures which will extinguish the risk of no deal and remove the democratic threat posed by no brexit. the fear of being trapped in the backstop of the eu losing, using its leveraged in negotiations, has been repeatedly raised in previous debates. i do not believe the eu ever intended to approach our future relationship in bad faith. and indeed it is an irony that those who say that they are european suggest that the backstop and the eu acting in bad faith is a concern of theirs.

it is certainly not my experience of dealing with them. we share values and we want to trade together. but we have acted to address... i will give way. on that point about us being stuck in the backstop i understand that the attorney general further to my question earlier has been able to extend his advice on how article 62 of the vienna convention could be used and i wonder if my right honourable friend would be able to confirm that. i'm happy to address the point that my honourable friend makes. i was going to come on to the wider point, but the attorney general made clear at this evening that the documents laid before the house reduced the risk in which she previously gave advice to the house on the 13th of november.

but i think the issue to which he refers is the exceptional circumstances which might change the basis on which the uk might enter into an agreement. for the clarity of the house if the uk took the reasonable view on clear evidence that the objectives of the protocol will no longer being proportionately served by its provisions for example because it was not any longer protecting the 1998 agreement in all its dimensions, the uk would first attempt to resolve the issue in the joint committee and within the negotiations. howeveras joint committee and within the negotiations. however as the attorney general said in a house today, it could respectfully be argued that if the facts wanted it clearly that there had been a fundamental change of circumstances, affecting the essential basis of the treaty on which the uk consent had been given, as my honourable friend will no article 62 of the vienna convention which is reflective of

the international law, permits the termination of a treaty in such circumstances. in the government knew it would be clear in those exceptional circumstances that international law provides the uk with the right to terminate the agreement. the withdrawal agreement. in the unlikely event that that were to happen in the uk would no doubt offer to continue to observe obligations in connection with citizens' rights for example. i hope that addresses the concern that was raised. as the attorney general going to issue an addendum to the statement in the opinion that he has already given or is this just the honourable gentleman taking his cue on the matter? firstly i have set out the position on behalf of the government and given that clarity

ahead of the vote. what was clear in response to the statement earlier today from the attorney general is that he has been assiduous in his duties to this house, he has provided his legal advice both in novemberand provided his legal advice both in november and today, and i'm provided his legal advice both in novemberand today, and i'm sure provided his legal advice both in november and today, and i'm sure the attorney general will continue to be a servant of the house and acting that way. we have three minutes remaining. order. the house must come itself of the it is up to the right honourable gentleman to decide if he wishes to give way. i will of course reflect the will of the house and give way for the what is interesting is the view from the benches opposite is not to get into the substance but just to play politics. i will give

way. i'm most grateful. ijust want to understand the implications of article 62 as it seems to me what he is saying is that that would be grounds for avoiding the entire treaty. but that is a rather different thing from being able to pull out of a backstop, doubtless there might be some members of this house who will be only too delighted to see the entire treaty voided. it is almost 7p in london time. you join us live from the heart of westminster from across the nation on bbc one and the bbc news channel and from across the globe on bbc world news. the terms on which the uk

is meant to leave the eu. we‘ll bring you live coverage from the house of commons over the next hour. almost two months ago theresa may‘s deal went down to a massive, historic defeat in the house of commons. tonight, despite some last minute changes designed to make it more palatable, mrs may is still struggling to raise a majority. let‘s get the thoughts of our political editor laura kuenssberg. laura, what is the significance of tonight‘s vote? laura, what is the significance of tonight's vote? it could hardly matter more. delivering brexit smoothly and on time, in theory, at the end of this month, is the central mission of theresa may. it a lwa ys central mission of theresa may. it always has been, since the moment she moved into number 10. at the end of january, mps overwhelmingly said they did not like her deal, that she has done such a lot of work with the eu to get, this compromise. tonight is her second chance to get it

through. but it looks like she is going to failagain, through. but it looks like she is going to fail again, and maybe fail badly. the reality is, for our viewers, as and when that happens in the next hour, nobody in westminster today, even senior members of the cabinet, can tell you what happens next. it is a big night in westminster. let‘s go straight to the house of commons where the speaker, john bercow, is now calling this pivotal vote. of the contrary, no? no! division! clear the lobby. so, mps now beginning to vote through the division lobbies. they physically walk through the division lobby, for or against mrs may‘s brexit deal. a packed house, over 630 of them voting tonight. it will

ta ke 50