hello, i'm ros atkins, this is outside source. the uk is staring into the unknown. of that he does not wantjust weeks of more of the same. thank you very much. this is a bbc the ayes to the right 242, the noes to the left 391. news brexit special. theresa may's brexit deal has been rejected again. and still she looks forward. defeat for prime minister theresa may as mps vote down her brexit i profoundly regret the decision dealfor a second time. this house has taken tonight. i continue to believe that by far the best outcome is that the united kingdom leaves the noes to the left, 391. the european union in an orderly fashion with a deal. despite theresa may securing late changes to the agreement the opposition, though, with the eu, mps rejected her deal wants a different course. by a majority of 149. the prime minister has run down the clock and the clock has i profoundly regret the decision run out on her. this house has taken tonight. i maybe it's time instead we had continue to believe that by far the a general election and the best outcome is that the united kingdom leaves the european union in an orderly fashion with a deal. the leader of the opposition says the government has been defeated by an enormous majority and that it's time for a general election. the prime minister has run down the

clock and the clock has been run out on her. maybe it's time instead we had a general election and the people could choose who the government should be. in the next two days mps will return to vote on whether the uk should leave without a deal — or ask the eu to delay brexit. good evening, welcome back to westminster. the uk government has suffered another massive defeat in the house of commons, over its deal to leave the european union. mps voted by a majority of 149 to reject the agreement that prime minister theresa may has taken two years to negotiate with the eu. with just over two weeks to go before the date schedule for brexit,

mps will return to parliament tomorrow, over the next two days, to decide whether brexit happens without a deal — and the risk that brings to the economy — or ask the eu to delay the brexit that the uk public voted for in a referendum in 2016. this was the moment tonight's result was announced in the house of commons less than an hour ago. order! order! the ayes to the right 242, the noes to the left 391. the ayes to the right 242, the noes to the left 391. so the noes have it, the noes have it. the speaker announcing the result there.

here is confirmation of that result from the house of commons. mps voted overwhelmingly to reject the prime minister's eu withdrawal agreement. 242 mps voted to approve the deal, but 391 voted to reject it. that means the government was defeated by 149 votes. at the last meaningful vote in january, the government lost by an ever bigger record margin of 230 votes. this defeat is smaller than that but it's still a huge setback for theresa may. so where does she go now? the prime minister was the first to speak and outlined the next steps. i'm passionate about delivering the result of the referendum, but i equally passionately believe the best way to do that is to leave in an orderly way with a deal and i still believe there is a majority in the house for that course of action. i'm conscious also... and i'm

conscious also of my duties as prime minister of the united kingdom of great britain and northern ireland. and the potential damage to the union that leaving without a deal could do when one part of our country is without devolved governments. i can therefore confirm the motion will read that this house declined to approve leaving the european union without a withdrawal agreement and a framework on the future relationship on the 29th of march 2019, and note that leaving without a deal remains the default in uk and eu law unless this house and the eu ratify an agreement. i will return to the house to open the debate tomorrow and to take interventions from honourable members, and to ensure the house is fully informed in making this historic decision. the government will tomorrow publish information on essential policies which would need to be put in place if we are to

leave without a deal. this will cover our approach to tariffs and the northern ireland border among other matters. if the house vote to leave without a deal on the 29th of march, it will be the policy of the government to implement that decision. if the house declines to approve leaving without a deal, the government will following that there would bring forward a motion on thursday on whether the parliament wa nts to thursday on whether the parliament wants to see an extension to article 50. if the house votes for an extension, the government will seek to agree that with the eu and bring forward the necessary legislation to change the exit date commensurate with that extension. but let me be clear, voting against leaving without a deal and for an extension does not solve the problems we face. the eu will need to know what use we can make an extension and the house

has to answer that question. does it wish to revoke article 50? does it wa nt to wish to revoke article 50? does it want to hold a second referendum? or does it want to leave with a deal but not this deal? these are unenviable choices, but thanks to the decision the house has made this evening they are choices that must 110w evening they are choices that must now be faced. yes, worth underlining this is an unprecedented moment. anyone who tells you they know what happens next is lying because there are all manner of options now on the table. just to bring you one element from tim shipman, who is well respected within the lobby, theresa may has not discussed resignation with her team this evening. james forsyth from the spectator saying the prime minister will vote to take no deal off the table tomorrow in a free vote. quite extraordinary, he says, that the government has no

position on no deal. we will talk about that in a second. this was the response from the leader of the opposition jeremy corbyn. the government has been defeated again by an enormous majority and must now accept their deal, their proposal, the one the prime minister has put is clearly dead and doesn't have the support of this house. and quite clearly no deal must be taken off the table. we have said that before and we will say it again, but it does mean the house has got to come together with a proposal that could be negotiated. the labour party has put that proposal and we will put that proposal again because the dangers of what the prime minister is proposing are basically that she carries on threatening us all with the danger of no deal, the danger of that knowing full well the damage that will do to the british economy. this party will put forward

our proposals again, which are about a negotiated customs union, access to the market and protection of rights. those are the ones we will put forward. we believe there may well be a majority for them but there will also be the potential of negotiating them. the prime minister has run down the clock and the clock has run down the clock and the clock has been run out on her. maybe it is time instead we had a general election and the people could choose who their government should be. the reaction ofjeremy corbin in the house a short time ago. we can now speak to our chief political correspondent vicki young. another terrible defeat for the prime minister's deal and that has set in motion probably another to votes this week were tomorrow mps will get the chance to vote against a no—deal brexit if they want. it will be a so—called free vote meaning theresa may is not dictating to hear mps how they should vote.

i'm joined by a former brexit minister. you voted against the deal tonight, it has been roundly defeated again. the prime minister's authority has almost gone here. this is what she has been working on for two years and it's been voted down again, is it time she should resign? it's disappointing it has been voted down again, it's a sign it is a bad deal and what should be happening i'iow deal and what should be happening now is honouring our manifesto pledges and what we promised the british people that no deal is better than a bad deal and i hope thatis better than a bad deal and i hope that is the ultimate course of events. but we are being told tomorrow theresa may will vote to ta ke tomorrow theresa may will vote to take no deal off the table. isn't there a danger now with 17 days to go until brexit was supposed to happen, actually voting against this deal, you arejeopardising it and it might not happen at all. it was a difficult decision and i did so with

a heavy heart. i voted against this deal because it didn't deliver brexit. it would tiles and definitely into a customs union, it would annex northern ireland and give the eu huge leverage and a say over our laws. that is not what 17.4 million people voted for in the historic referendum of 2016, sol can still look people in the eye and say i didn't vote for something which may appear to be brexit but actually wasn't brexit and i am confident to defend my position. you know the make—up of parliament here, it's pretty clear that tomorrow no—deal brexit will be taken off the table before the end of the month, then the day after it is likely parliament will mandate the prime minister to ask for an extension. it's actually a delay to brexit, brexit is now unlikely to happen on the 29th of march. it is on possible to make any predictions frankly, and i think to make any predictions frankly, and ithink an to make any predictions frankly, and i think an extension, if that were

to happen, there are many steps that need to be taken in order to get to an actual extension. it would be pointless. it's not what people want. we have promised to take the uk out of the eu on the 29th of march, i think the prime minister said that over a hundred times on the floor of the house. it would only postpone the inevitable day and throw the country into uncertainty. businesses and individuals and many people behind me just want to know what the terms of our departure are and an extension would be wholly inimical to that. and how will you vote in tomorrow's vote on no deal? lam very vote in tomorrow's vote on no deal? i am very clear i will vote to maintain no—deal as i am very clear i will vote to maintain no—dealas an i am very clear i will vote to maintain no—deal as an option in these negotiations. it is right for several reasons. first of all a basic negotiation needs an element

of knowing when to walk away from the table, and if we take that option away we give all our leverage to the eu and we are at their mercy in terms of what they might offer. if there is a threat we might move away from the negotiation, that increases our chances of getting a good deal. secondly we have made numerous promises that we would be ready to leave on wto terms in the event that a deal wasn't good enough or was defeated and i think it's only honourable for us to honour that. very few people think we are ready for no—deal, do you genuinely think we are? it's not without challenge but we are at a very advanced stage of preparations. i was a minister in the department for exiting the eu and i saw first—hand how we have struck relevant deals with the eu so aviation and cars, customs and trains and holidays and citizens can continue to function in the same way as they do now. we've

also huge benefits from a wto brexit, we don't have to pay the £39 billion for example. some think we do, something legally we have to still pay that. not in a no deal scenario. part of this deal binds us to pay £39 billion of taxpayers money to the eu for the guarantee of a free trade deal in return. it's not a good deal. everyone looking forward to tomorrow. because there isa forward to tomorrow. because there is a free vote every mp is able to vote how they wish. thank you. so what is going to happen next? this is what we know at the moment. tomorrow mps will be asked whether they want to leave the eu without any agreement in place. the so—called no—deal option. and theresa may has said it will be a free vote, allowing ministers in her government to vote against leaving at the end of march.

if as expected the commons votes against that, on thursday mps will be asked if they wish to extend the two—year article 50 process — effectively delaying brexit beyond the expected date of 29th march. then next thursday eu leaders meet in brussels for a summit in which brexit is on the agenda. strictly speaking it is the last summit the uk would be attending. if mps have asked for an extension, the eu will decide whether to grant it or return with a counter offer. it is in the power of the uk to request that extension but the terms of it, that is down to the eu so let's discuss some of that with three observers of the political scene. henry newman from the think tank open europe which broadly supports brexit, grace bla kely from the guardian, and katy balls

from the statesman. what do you think will happen in these next two votes? theresa may has said they will be a free vote tomorrow, and the idea of trying to ta ke tomorrow, and the idea of trying to take no deal off the table. lots of people say you cannot do that permanently. i think the general view is there is not a majority in the house of commons for no deal right now so the expectation is that vote will pass. we are already seeing a backlash from brexiteers who think theresa may should be whipping to keep no deal on the table so that will have some backlash, but as you go on, if that vote passes as we expect, it will go to trying to extend the article 50 vote and at that point we expect that also to pass. what terms brussels would grant an extension on, that is when it gets interesting because some in downing street do believe we could have a meaningful vote free. even though the defeat was so heavy, 149 votes today, a

slight improvement on 230 the last time, they think there could be a route to having a third vote on this deal. if the extension period has terms that a lot of mps will be unhappy with, perhaps the caveats, that could be a way you could try to get her deal back on track. you slightly pre—empted the question i was going to ask to henry, which is is this deal now dead? it has been voted down overwhelmingly twice, could she come back for a third time? and what will she get because jean—claude juncker said yesterday this is it. of course he would say that and will say that next week but the deal is not dead because there are only three options overall. leaving without a deal, and that will almost certainly be ruled out tomorrow, or no brexit, having a second referendum. jeremy corbin didn't even mention that today so the second referendum campaign is stalling. the only option really remainsa stalling. the only option really remains a version of this deal. she

needs to persuade 79 mp5 to back it which is difficult but not impossible. although we saw the result was disappointing she made some inroads in persuading some backbench critics to support it. we saw some influential eurosceptic mps including david davis and zac goldsmith, whose father was a former tory mayoral candidate in london, the dean diaries, they all moved their position and backed the brexit deal —— nadine dorries. their position and backed the brexit deal -- nadine dorries. if the eu next week say ok, you can have an extension but it is a long one and you can pay 1 extension but it is a long one and you can pay1 billion euros a month for that extension, that becomes difficult to sell to the electorate, doesn't it? a huge amount hinges on what it looks like because if it is guaranteed until the european

elections, it is a short space of time for parliament to change anything substantively. ultimately it hasn't changed over the past couple of years, the only thing that has a majority of some sort of soft brexit so unless mps can try to figure out a way of getting that forward , figure out a way of getting that forward, unless theresa may can figure out a way of doing that in her party, nothing will change. you might geta her party, nothing will change. you might get a no deal and there may be a situation in which we crash out, the european union says that you can come back in on appalling terms because the extension of two years would put up a whole host of challenges, not least about whether the uk can participate in european elections. they can vote to take no deal off the table and vote for an extension but those are parliamentary motions, they don't ta ke parliamentary motions, they don't take the statute of the table which is article 50 which says we will leave on the 29th of march. this is why it is hard to take no deal off. and it's also why some brexiteers

are refusing to vote for theresa may's deal. there are some in the european research group who feel that if you hold firm no deal is the default. i think they accept there may be a short extension but when you talk about the two year extension they begin to think maybe you go back to it. given the force against no—deal, and also if you look at the make—up of the lords, i think no—deal is hard to get to. it's not impossible but as henry touched on, there is a chance more brexiteers come round if you start to look like you are heading towards a very delayed brexit. it's interesting that jacob rees—mogg today seem to be pushing the line that they are not going to vote for theresa may's deal unless brexit looks like it is in peril. some say it looks like that now but they may decide by the end of the week even that it does after mps vote. that's the point for labour mps who might

support the prime minister after the attorney general‘s advice this morning, it was highly unlikely they we re morning, it was highly unlikely they were going to come across and vote when they really didn't need to because it was going to be defeated. i think that's exactly right. a sizeable block of labour mps might move across. some have been very clear they won't support a second referendum and they are looking for potentially a softer brexit but that is already possible under the current deal. all the mp5 are trying to do is change the non—binding bits of the deal. they are happy with the existing deal as it is so we can see them ultimately moving. on no—deal, them ultimately moving. on no—deal, the first rule of politics as you have got to be able to count. there is no majority for no—deal. even those who support it recognise it will be a huge national challenge and any government trying to do that would lose its majority in the house of commons and probably wouldn't even be able to govern. i'm trying

to work out what happens in this two months ten days period where the eu say, ok, but we need something more from the uk parliament. when there have to be indicative vote for another plan if it wasn't going to be theresa may's plan? that would be one way of going about it. henry is right that some sort of soft brexit or staying in the single market could be compatible with the withdrawal agreement as it stands, what we need is changes to the political declaration, the non—binding stuff. so labour may be focusing on trying to get some sort of changes to the political declaration but again that is something theresa may is unlikely to accept, both because it will be coming from the labour leader which will make her look even weaker, and split the tory party even more than it is split. thank you very much indeed for the moment. let's cross back to vicki young in the lobby with more reaction. everybody

looking ahead to tomorrow, but of course tonight's defeat has been another huge defeat for theresa may on her main plank of brexit policy. let's discuss that with the snp's westminster leader. what do you make of this defeat? it is the second time the prime minister has had a humiliation in front of the house of commons. she needs to recognise there is not support for her deal, she shouldn't think about bringing us she shouldn't think about bringing us back again. let's put that to the side, but there is a real issue the uk slightly more than to weeks away from leaving the european union. parliament has to on its constituents. the prospect of no—deal is frightening, what happens to medicines and food supply. we have a responsibility of taking that risk away and tomorrow i hope the house of commons comprehensively delivers that message that no—deal is not acceptable, it is not in any

one's interest so let's take that off the table. i suppose then there is the question of where do we go from there and i fundamentally believe that in any scenario, of any combination of brexit options, the uk will be a poorer place. we know it is going to costjobs, we are already seeing that, we have seen what has happened to the auto industry which many people spent so many long years to build up. we need to go back to the people of the uk, we need to extend article 50 for a meaningful period and lets have the option of a people's vote. now we know the facts of what brexit will do. the options though tomorrow taking no—deal off the table, actually doesn't take it off the table in the sense that the legal position, unless you vote through an alternative, the legal position is still no—deal. alternative, the legal position is still no-deal. you're right, there are a numberof still no-deal. you're right, there are a number of steps we have to go through and this was raised in the

chamber tonight, that we had to amend the legislation because no—deal cannot be the default position. if we are going to vote against no—deal tomorrow night, it must be meaningful. let's take the threat away. then we have to get together, myself and the first minister of the together, myself and the first ministerof the snp, together, myself and the first minister of the snp, nicola sturgeon, have offered to engage in talks with the prime minister in a constructive manner but it has to be on the basis that a people's vote is pa rt of on the basis that a people's vote is part of that agenda. and if there we re part of that agenda. and if there were to be another referendum, how quickly do you think you could hold one? the eu might well agree to an extension for that but how long will it take, and what if people vote in the same way again? we have to agree the same way again? we have to agree the mechanism for it, we have to agree the question is, let's do this in an orderly manner. i would suggest it is something that could be done in the autumn but let's get round the table and discuss it. i firmly believe that once people know the facts of what brexit will do

that they will vote to remain but we will respect the result whatever it is. i would say to the prime minister, come what may she has to respect that scotland has a clear position of remain, and if the uk is going to leave the european union we need to determine our own future. scottish government has a mandate if it so chooses to use it to have a referendum on scotland being an independent country in europe so there are a number of stages we have to go through, but we want to make sure that clear expression is given of our desire to stay in the european union. that is the best way of protecting jobs and living standards. your opponents will want to say you will want to keep asking questions until you get the answer you want. no, when you look at the reality of the situation, as members of parliament i would say our first responsibility is protecting the economic interests of our constituents. we know there is a real risk tojobs.

constituents. we know there is a real risk to jobs. the constituents. we know there is a real risk tojobs. the scottish government have done its own analysis there is a risk of no deal up analysis there is a risk of no deal up to 100,000 jobs analysis there is a risk of no deal up to 100,000jobs in analysis there is a risk of no deal up to 100,000 jobs in scotland. we know from the likes of many economic institutes including the cbi know from the likes of many economic institutes including the cb! and the bank of england that there is a risk of up to 4% even from the prime minister's deal, that is twice the impact of the financial crisis. we simply shouldn't be doing this and that's where the honesty we have to have with our constituents as to what brexit is going to do. thank you very much indeed, and theresa may earlier saying to mps, you cannot keep deferring these decisions. in the end a decision has to be made and just voting against everything is not going to help. quite. what is it the parliament will back? we will talk about that ina will back? we will talk about that in a while. we have heard from donald tusk who said he is disappointed the uk government has been unable to ensure a majority for the withdrawal agreement. he says...

michel barnier, the european chief negotiator for brexit, tweeted: we have also got some reaction from the dutch prime minister, who has taken to twitter the dutch prime minister, who has ta ken to twitter and the dutch prime minister, who has taken to twitter and said...

let's cross over to strasbourg, and adam fleming. of course all eyes now on the summit next week. they will be talking obviously about to delay, which we presume parliament will vote for on thursday, but they will also you would presumably talking about the threat of no—deal as well? would presumably talking about the threat of no-deal as well? yes, that's the two strands i think the eu 27 as the remaining countries are known these days will be pursuing. first of all no deal. they have a whole load of bits of legislation going through the legislative process in the eu parliament. a lot of them are nearly done now so there isa of them are nearly done now so there is a growing confidence amongst the eu that they are prepared to deal with the absolute worst of no deal. that's not to say they won't be less

than absolute worst, there will still be a lot of chaos if there is no deal, and the second track they will be pursuing is an extension to article 50 under the eu treaty which governs the ground rules that period are supposed to take two years. the treaty says that period can be extended if the departing country and 27 remaining countries agree. the big question will be what are the conditions of the eu will extra ct the conditions of the eu will extract from the uk? tonight the script is being used by all eu leaders is it has to be a reasoned request, in other words it has to come with a reason, notjust we would like a bit more time please, and it also has to be credible. in other words that reason has to be backed up with credibility. it could actually lead somewhere. the eu institutions and top brass haven't really had a conversation yet about this issue of an extension. you hear lots of different views from people and they will have to get those views crystallised into a couple of

potential time limits and reasons, and a probability for each that the eu leaders would be able to present to theresa may if she asks for an extension at the summit which will ta ke extension at the summit which will take place in brussels a week on thursday. i was going to ask to perfectly about that because jean—claude juncker said we need perfectly about that because jean—claudejuncker said we need an agreement by the 23rd, that is the cut—off point, otherwise you have to put forward meps in the elections. then we heard from his chief adviser saying, no, we want a longer extension up to a year because we have got to get commissioners in place, they have got to be approved by the european parliament so there will be that debate going on within the european council. here are a sample of some of the views, we will not be doing all of them, we would have to extend the programme. legally orthodox, it has to be over by the 23rd of may, to be safe,

because then you avoid the european parliament election issue. others say it has to be until the 1st of july because the new members of the european parliament do not take their seats until the 2nd ofjuly, so you could have a situation where the uk has not taken part in the elections but is still in the eu and leaves without sending meps here. then the situation with the uk staying passed the 22nd ofjuly, and taking part in the european parliament elections, a frankly bizarre election campaign in the uk and ruffling a lot of feathers or you have the uk as a member state of the eu, not sending meps to this place which would be a massive breach of eu law. the uk would be taken to the european court of justice. then the issue of the legitimacy of the institution. the uk hasa legitimacy of the institution. the uk has a commissioner who goes to work every day in the european commission making decisions and signing things off, what happened to him? do british ministers come to meetings on the council of ministers where they sign off legislation and

make decisions about the future of the eu, for example, the next multi—annual budget, which lasts for seven yea rs, from multi—annual budget, which lasts for seven years, from 2021 onwards. these are all the things firing through eu officials brains at the moment when they think about extensions and that is why when you talk to some of the most senior officials, they go pale, any number they think of for an extension for any reason, they start to worry about whether there are any good options. very little optimism in the eu at the moment, as you said in your tweet, lots to discuss, conversation is ongoing. always interesting to see how the pound moves on financial markets on nights like this in response to what is happening here in westminster. earlier in the day steling dropped by almost two cents against the euro after the attorney general said the legal risk of the uk being tied to eu rules after brexit " remains unchanged".

but later on when the prime minister lost that vote — sterling actually rose. investors perhaps betting that chances have increased of a delay to brexit. that view shared by the finance industry body the city uk — it said a no—deal brexit "would be an own goal of historic proportions". i'm joined now by nigel evans a conservative who backed theresa may's deal tonight — despite voting against it last time - and seema malhotra from labour, she's on the brexit select committee. you changed your opinion, a lot of people will be saying, the chances of knowing "brexit" have gone up substantially. i am getting a few of those e—mails, and we were all hopeful that when theresa may went to strasbourg, that she would pull the rabbit out of the hat, and she did pull a rabbit out of the hat, brought it home to the united kingdom and the attorney general shot it dead this morning. once she gave the legal advice that nothing

had changed legally, could not get the dup on side, and a lot within the dup on side, and a lot within the arj said they would not support it but i fear more that i am going to be trapped in the european union, than i am going to be trapped in the backstop. —— the erg. that is why i change my vote today. even at this late hour coming we know what we will have tomorrow, no deal will be taken off the table, on thursday they will vote to extend article 50, why, so we can continue arguing for another couple of months? i understand people asking for an extension, but 17.4 million people will feel completely betrayed if we are contesting the next european election. it would be quite something if you said, i know that you have voted for brexit in record numbers, 17.5 million people, we have not delivered that, can you now vote in the european elections and elect meps to brussels. we talk about 17.4 million but we should also be talking about the 16.1

million who voted to remain, it was a very close result. i get that, but we could be holding european elections before another people's vote. i want to make that point, we hear the prime minister talking about this so much, just those that voted labour, the leader of the opposition and many other colleagues are talking about how we must heal a divide and recognise it was a close result and that is why it is so difficult in parliament. i recognise that we are at a turning point and i voted against the prime minister's deal because it is a deal that is going to make every region and nation poorer in the country, that is the assessment of the prime minister, but also because we have no idea what the future is going to look like, that is why it has been my view that we must have a proper debate, and amendments to the political declaration so the future is much more certain and we know where we are moving to as well as away from. i agree that this is a time of uncertainty but i think that is the house of commons votes against no deal tomorrow, which i

believe it will, that will provide a gateway to having a much more mature debate, when we step back from the brink, if we extend article 50, the length of that, if we request that, it will have to come from the prime minister, it is amendable, that will allow us to have a say about what the terms are, and we could support a deal, we have seen some of that come forward from different members of parliament, including the opposition, but to say, if we are to support the deal, do we want a people's vote as well? allow the house to express that view. if we have these debates, in a mature way, over the next few weeks, we will move out of this gridlock and that is what will be important for democracy. it is not a given that the european union will take no deal off the table. there are countries, like belgium and lithuania, that have said, we don't want to give an extension, and there are countries... do you think they will?

i don't think any country wants to see no deal. any extension is the option for britain somehow or other remaining in the european union, we have seen by the quotes you have given tonight from donald tusk and michel barnier, they are playing off the same hymn sheet, blaming london, brussels themselves could have recognised the domestic problems we have within the northern ireland irish situation, they know the backstop as it currently stands is totally u na cce pta ble, that backstop as it currently stands is totally unacceptable, that was the stumbling point, that is why it was not supported. they could have given on that. this is notjust about brussels, this is about the british people, people who have written to me, many have written to me, over 60% of constituents have supported some form of people's vote, only 10% talked about wanting to leave... wanting to leave with theresa may's deal, what people are concerned about is, is brexit going to deliver what they were told in terms of supporting the nhs, which we know the government has now taken away...

talking about the brexit committee... if i can make talking about the brexit committee... ifi can make this talking about the brexit committee... if i can make this one point, the money for the nhs, committee... if i can make this one point, the money forthe nhs, the government, if they are supporting the nhs, why have they taken away the nhs, why have they taken away the four hour accident and emergency targets? look at the reality and the rhetoric. if brexit, if we don't look at the causes of brexit, it will not deliver what people ask.|j wa nt to will not deliver what people ask.|j want to get one last question in, i wa nt to want to get one last question in, i want to hear your thoughts, you sit on the select committee, do you think this deal is dead, voted down twice, in overwhelming, unprecedented numbers, is it dead?” think it is dead, if you want a different outcome, she needs a different outcome, she needs a different deal and a different political declaration. without the dup, the deal is dead. for you as well? for parliament, without the dup coming on site, without the erg, the defeat came down, but the numbers are colossal and brussels

needs to understand, they must give way on the backstop. nice to see you as always. one crucial moment today came when the attorney general, the uk's top legal officer, gave his verdict on the agreements struck with the eu last night. this morning in a written summary he said that the new legal assurances in his view did reduce the risk of the uk becoming stuck in the backstop. but he concluded that — if that happened — the uk would still 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. the star chamber went away to look at this, so too did geoffrey cox, and martin howe is a qc who has been

advising the pro—"brexit" european research group of conservative mps. did you go into the meeting hoping this would be the answer? know, we reviewed them overnight, one of the things that is pretty disgraceful about this whole process is that we have members of parliament taking a very important decision today, whichever way you think it should 90, whichever way you think it should go, it is important, and it is very important that members of parliament should be able to understand fully the legal implications, whatever way they vote on it, and we have this ludicrous scenario where complex documents about 30 pages of legal verbiage were unloaded at ten p m, and then the vote was today. that meant, iam and then the vote was today. that meant, i am used to it, sort of, but that meant me spending midnight hours going through it... in fairness to the prime minister, one

of the reasons was the irish cabinet wa nted of the reasons was the irish cabinet wanted to see the unilateral declaration and discuss what it meant, it was meant to come back earlier than it meant, it was meant to come back earlierthan it did... meant, it was meant to come back earlier than it did... i'm not sure i agree with that, i strongly suspect it was deliberately done at the last minute to minimise the time for scrutiny, that unilateral declaration is absolutely bogus. i mean, iam declaration is absolutely bogus. i mean, i am very glad the attorney general stuck to the advice he gave for that unilateral declaration, it isa for that unilateral declaration, it is a disgrace. it does not in any way change the position or advance the uk's interest, it was concocted as simplya the uk's interest, it was concocted as simply a smoke screen, to try to pretend the deal is different from what it was and it was not. let me ask you about, specifically, about arbitration, the whole nub of what she brought back was that there would be a mechanism for the uk to unilaterally withdraw from the backstop, the irish backstop. it seems to me, and i am nota

backstop, the irish backstop. it seems to me, and i am not a lawyer, correct me if i am wrong, we would be able to trigger an arbitration process but it would be up to the eu within that arbitration panel to decide whether we have the case, is that where the problem lies? that is not quite the problem, the problem is, to get out of the backstop, we need the agreement of the european union, they have the legal right to veto it. the only way we could get out of it is to prove that the european union were acting in bad faith, which is a subjective issue and it is extremely difficult to prove in international relations, to say a country, an entity like the european union is acting in bad faith, almost unheard of, for international panels to uphold that. i think the whole issue of hoping to get out of the backstop by bad faith finding is actually all along com pletely finding is actually all along completely bogus, completely unrealistic. not much time, one last

question, is there anything legally that can be added to this document, in quick style, which would mean that it could get the support of the house? i would imagine, a that it could get the support of the house? iwould imagine, a very simple clause giving the uk the legal right to withdraw from the backstop, it is the game change, the unilateral withdrawal, which they will not give us. that is the only way that can change at. sorry to rush you, thank you very much. if you'vejustjoined us, the uk government has suffered another massive defeat in the house of commons over its deal to leave the european union. here is confirmation of that result from the house of commons. mps voted overwhelmingly to reject the prime minister's eu withdrawal agreement. 242 mps voted to approve the deal but 391 voted to reject it. that means the government was defeated by 149 votes. people like nigel evans coming across to support it. a defeat of 149 votes for the government. the

last time, 230... this time, 149, some have come across. damaging defeat for the prime minister. sarah wollaston is an mp in the independent group, formerly conservative, voted against the deal. where do we go from here? what we have seen is the prime minister has put down a motion which presents a false binary, between having a deal and having no deal, when in fa ct deal and having no deal, when in fact there are other options, so we would like to see that ended tomorrow, to make it absolutely clear that under no circumstances will the house of commons accept the government taking us out with no deal at all, and should also be considering the other ways that can be done, my preference would be to put a deal to the british people, give them the right to vote, the other option, as a last resort, if we we re other option, as a last resort, if we were about to crash out, would be to revoke it altogether. labour has

not yet put forward the amendment for the people's referendum, and... hugely disappointing, we know what happened when the group form, the labour front bench panic and said, we will accept a people's vote to try to stop other labour mps joining us try to stop other labour mps joining us and of course, they have backtracked from that. that is hugely disappointing. there is a process here, first, there must be a vote for an extension, we don't know what demands the eu will place on the uk to get that extension... we know they have already indicated that if it was for a democratic process , that if it was for a democratic process, like a referendum, they would allow that, my worry is that some people may put forward an amendment that makes it a short extension, because we know we need at least 24 weeks to allow for a referendum to take place, in my view, it has to be sufficiently long to allow for that democratic process. if it is longer than a short extension, what are you going

to say to the british people about the european elections. this is something that would have to be agreed with the eu, it would be a strange thing if we had eu elections and then vote to leave. i'm sure there will be a process of negotiation, should we agree to go forward with the people's vote, just to say whether those elections... will go into a process where'd we do not know what the result will be, and we have no representation in europe during that time. for a relatively short period... how do you get a remain vote, the people's vote somewhere down the line later on down the year, then, how do we have mps within the european parliament? i think you could have a mechanism whereby existing meps could stay on for a short period, this would be a short overlap, and then you have elections, should that be the choice of the british people, if we had a second referendum we would need to be very clear that we would need to be very clear that we would move rapidly towards

implementation. this time, people will be voting on a known deal. as opposed fantasy promises. the public can see, what is on offer is nothing like the promises that were made in the referendum, so, let's give them the referendum, so, let's give them the opportunity to weigh those up. when the prime minister asked whether the option was a people's vote, you heard cries of yes from a feud, the overwhelming sound i heard was, no, it was not a majority. people were not expecting her to say that, you always have a louder shout, people have built up to it, i accept shout, people have built up to it, i a cce pt we shout, people have built up to it, i accept we may have a process to go through. people want to put forward the so—called norway model. we will have a sequence of events, first, for all out no deal, then a vote to see whether the house could settle on something that looks like norway

but people, the hard brexit ears, are even more opposed to a norway type deal than they are to the prime minister's deal, so if the house rejects that, it is a very last resort, a lot of mps will see if there was a complete impasse in parliament, which is where we would be at this point, we would be faced with a simple choice, do they crash out with no deal or some kind of public vote to allow some legitimacy for the public to be able to say, let's scrap the whole thing, total catastrophe, start to finish, let's stick with the deal we have. thank you very much indeed. fiona trott is in sunderland, where 61% of people voted leave in the 2016 referendum. a lot of people up there will be looking at this result, and are scratching their head. that's right, this is also a city which don't forget is looking at a couple of hundred jobs at risk because nissan, the car—maker, is said two more

models will not be produced in this city, nissan has said that uncertainty over brexit is making it ha rd uncertainty over brexit is making it hard for companies to plan for the future. a businessman who is trying to plan for the future, stephen irish, you make batteries for electric vehicles, you could be staring hard brexit in the face, how do you feel? we would have preferred an end to the uncertainty but we are prepared either way. so, an end to the uncertainty but we are prepared eitherway. so, yeah, we can deal with the outcome. you have contingency plans in place, what do they look like? we have been preparing for some time, good business practice but it puts us in an interesting position, shortening supply chains, forming partnerships internationally so we can make the product overseas, and we can license technology abroad as well. what factories? manufacturing partnership in taiwan. and in north america before long as well.

how do your parishioners feel? uncertainty is bad for business but also very worrying for ordinary hard—working men and women here, i have seen a definite shift in people in sunderland moving from wanting a brexit to remain now, and the reason is, ithink brexit to remain now, and the reason is, i think a lot of people were really charmed by the idea of lots of money going to the nhs, police resources, money for education, and none of this has materialised, in fa ct we none of this has materialised, in fact we have seen an increase in poverty, inequality, people using, using food banks, we have a situation now, six weeks holiday, children going to bed hungry because they do not get a decent meal, and theseissues they do not get a decent meal, and these issues have not been dealt with by this government, this failing government who have proved themselves inept again today. a definite swing towards remain.

politicians have been concentrating too much on brexit, not thinking about the day—to—day problems. the people that voted leave in the first place, you say they change their minds, do you think the passion they had in the first place has gone?m has, absolutely, it has fizzled out, people want to deal with issues like the nhs and education, people want to be able to earn enough money to live, and feed their children, and have a better life, and thisjust isn't happening now. if there was another referendum, with those people vote remain?” another referendum, with those people vote remain? i do, i think it would galvanise a lot of people and there would be a definite swing to remain. thank you very much for joining us. some views here from sunderland, back to you. very interesting to hear from these brexit communities around the country, lots of reaction there over the course of the next 24, 48 hours,

as parliament goes into these votes. it will be a vote to take no deal off the table, and there will be no wit there, and then on thursday, a vote for a meaningful delay to the extension. what happens if they extend brexit is anyone's guess. james cleverley, conservative mp available — the numbers that we are talking about, normally, ifa prime the numbers that we are talking about, normally, if a prime minister could only get those numbers, they would have to go. we have never been ina would have to go. we have never been in a situation like this,

extricating ourselves from a 40 year relationship, and what the prime minister is doing is discharging the duties she inherited when she became prime minister, the instruction of the british people was to get us out of the eu, the implicit instruction was to do so in good order and she is making good on that promise. lot of brexiteers within the conservative party are furious that she is not whipping on this vote. there are practicalities, the parliamentary maths dictates that we need to take, we need to be sensible, we need to be practical in how we move forward, the prime minister has made the judgment call, if she explores the appetite of the house, as promised, the best way to do that would be with a free vote. what will she do when she goes back to brussels? i don't know. where is the leveraged? to brussels? i don't know. where is the leveraged ? they to brussels? i don't know. where is the leveraged? they have said, that's it, this is as good as it gets, parliament votes to take no

deal off the table, this is the eu with the extension that will be dictating the terms. that is why i will be voting against it, i voted for the withdrawal agreement this evening, while not perfect, i thought it accomplished what we promised in the referendum, take back control of money, borders, laws. give business implementation period so they can adjust to life beyond membership of the eu. if they vote to take a no deal off the table, rather than voting not to leave, and if we vote to extend article 50, i think it reduces the leveraged in the eu and that would be counter—productive. leveraged in the eu and that would be counter-productive. just out of time, thank you very much for coming to give us your thoughts, damaging defeat for theresa may, withdrawal agreement, brexit deal has gone down by 149 votes, you just heard from james cleverley, she is going to plug on, she will go back to

brussels next week. what turns will we getan brussels next week. what turns will we get an extension? that is the big question tonight. thoroughly wet day for many of us, now we have a stormy spell of weather to approach off the atlantic, likely to cause disruption over the next 24 hours, severe gales, heavy rain, localised flooding in some places. this will cause further disruption. storm gareth, showing up pretty beautifully on the satellite picture, looking in from the atlantic to bring this rain and very strong wind to our shores, in particular the northern half of the country. this is the radar picture, the area of heavy rain, clearing the way, lots of showers, some of them will be falling as snow over the higher ground of scotland but it is the wind we are most concerned about, particularly across the northern half of the uk, reaching the end of the evening, first part of the night, a gust of 70 to 80 mph

will continue to batter parts of northern ireland into south—west scotland, damaging gusts of wind, likely to be significant disruption to travel, and wind very strong across north wales into northern england, 60 to 70 mph gusts, further south, closer to 50 to 60 mph, this could cause disruption as well, falling trees, damage to buildings, and lots of showers packing it in, heavy and blustery. a few clear spells. by the end of the night, temperatures ranging 47 degrees. into tomorrow, storm gareth pushes away into the north sea, very blustery day, severe gales, particularly across northern and eastern england, those winds will tend to ease a little bit, plenty of showers across northern and western areas, but also, some sunshine, top temperatures, ten to 12 degrees. the next feature moves across the united kingdom during thursday, bringing

another spell of wet and windy weather, most of the heavy rain should have cleared the south—east by the time we start thursday morning, lots of showers left in its wake, heavy across england and wales, wintry over the higher ground, the wind is very strong, gale force, particularly the northern and western coast. temperatures, a little above seasonal average, ten to 13 celsius. windy for the next few days into the weekend, gales on friday, further showers at times, and strong winds on saturday.