tonight at ten... we‘re at westminster where the prime minister has suffered a second heavy defeat on her brexit deal, leading to further confusion on the way ahead. the ayes to the right, 242. hello, i'm ros atkins, this is outside source. the noes to the left, 391. the uk is staring into the unknown. by a big majority of 149 — mps rejected the prime minister‘s deal — which now opens the way for mps the eyes to the right 242, to make other key decisions in the days to come. the noes to the left 391. theresa may's brexit deal has i profoundly regret the decision been rejected again. and still she looks forward. this house has taken tonight. i profoundly regret the decision i continue to believe this house has taken tonight. that by far the best outcome is that i continue to believe that by far the best outcome is that the united kingdom leaves the united kingdom leaves the european union in an orderly the european union in an orderly fashion with a deal. the opposition, though, fashion with a deal. wants a different course. the prime minister has run down the government has been defeated again by an enormous majority. they the clock and the clock has must now accept their deal, run out on her. maybe it's time instead we had a general election and the

people could choose who their government should be. during the next hour, we'll have reaction from westminster and across the european union. and christian fraser and rob watson will be live to take any questions you have on this extraordinary moment for the uk. brexit is ripping apart the politics of the uk. theresa may's brexit deal has been resoundingly rejected for a second time. order! the ayes to the right 242, the noes to the left 391.

so the noes have it, the noes have it. the deal was defeated in part by her own mps who want brexit, but not in this form. and so with 17 days until the uk is due to leave the european union, we don't know if, how, or when brexit will happen. the ruling conservative party is so divided as to no longer resemble a single political entity. and it's led by a prime minister who is desperately short of options. this is how the numbers broke down. the prime minister was defeated by 391 votes to 242 — that's a defeat of 149. not the scale of the defeat in january but still a vast defeat for a prime minister.

remember, only 17 days to go until brexit and we have absolutely no idea of how the uk is going to leave. the prime minister spoke directly after the result. 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... order! and i'm conscious also of my duties as prime minister of the united kingdom of great britain and northern ireland. and of 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 that 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 notes 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 were to leave without a deal. these will cover our approach to tariffs and the northern ireland border among other matters. if the house votes 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 vote bring forward a motion on thursday

on whether the parliament wants to seek 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 want 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 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 now be faced. and this was the response of the leader of the

opposition, jeremy corbyn. the government has been defeated again by an enormous majority and they 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 out on her. maybe it's time instead we had a general election and the people could choose who their government should be. we've already had some reaction from europe. let me show you this, most of it coming in in text form. this is the bbc brussels forum. this is from mark rutte, the dutch prime minister. i regret the outcome of tonight's #brexitvote. it is disappointing that the uk government has been unable to ensure a majority for the withdrawal agreement agreed by both parties in november.

the spanish prime minister pedro sanchez: "we regret the decision of the british parliament despite the eu's efforts to achieve the best possible agreement." the point they are trying to make is we went further to help theresa may and it didn't work. the austrian europe minister gernot blumel: "unpleasant result of today's vote in the british parliament. tomorrow in the house of commons, there will be a vote on no—deal. let's get the help of christian fraser on how this will work because the prime minister surprised some people by saying this would be a free vote tomorrow, can you explain how that works? usually the government would take a position on

emotion, on a vote and whip their mps to vote one way or the other. but on this, being it is such a divisive issue within the conservative party, many remainers wa nt to ta ke conservative party, many remainers want to take no deal off the table, brexiteers wanting to leave it there as some leveraged if there was to be further negotiation over theresa may's deal so the split in the party, after much agonising the prime minister said the best way forward is to have a free vote. they won't whip the vote tomorrow. cabinet ministers and mps will be able to vote whichever way their conscience decides they should go and we are told they will vote to ta ke and we are told they will vote to take no deal off the table. that will mean they will move very quickly on thursday to another vote to extend article 50, to probably extended at least in the short term but of course while the uk can request that extension it is in the

lap of the eu as to what the terms for that extension will be. help me out with the vote on thursday, and possibly extending article 50, do mps have the power to dictate the length of time theresa may requests? they can ask for a specific time but of course the eu will come back the other way and say what do you want this time for? because they don't wa nt to this time for? because they don't want to go round and round as they have been over the past few months. they want some direction from the house of commons. someone hasjust joined me who might be able to cast some light on the process, dominic grieve. thank you, i know you have just come from another interview, it's one of those nights. with the process over the next few days we must presume there is a majority for no deal in the house tomorrow but what about the extension, what is the prime minister likely to get? the majority to say no to no—deal,

yes, i'm confident that's the case. then we need an extension. this has to be negotiated with the eu so what i hope will happen is she will come to the house on thursday, there will bea to the house on thursday, there will be a motion which gives her the necessary approval and support of the house of commons to see that extension, then she needs to come back very quickly so that the house can debate the options that the eu are prepared to grant to us. we are going to have to make use of this extension period sensibly to get ourselves out of this terrible mess because we are in the midst of a major political crisis. but it's also a mess for the eu because there are various opinions as to how long the extension should be, whether it should be for a few months or a year. what then happens with the european elections. lots of questions on their side. equally, where there is a will there's a way. the european parliamentary elections are a difficulty but they are

perfectly surmountable if people wish to do that. the question as to how long the extension should be, i suspect the eu will not wish to specify a length particularly because it would be seen as dictating to us but we need to think about the time we need. time to come toa about the time we need. time to come to a decision, three months, might be reasonable but if we going to implement that i feel then negotiations are holding a referendum, they will undoubtedly need longer. in a referendum, even if you decide to hold it tomorrow, it couldn't really be held until august and you don't hold referendums in august so you are talking about october. that's giving you the time frame. on the other hand the decision could be made faster and my impression with the eu is if they think we are asking for an extension for a legitimate purpose they will do it for us. if they think we are asking for one because we cannot make up our mind, it will be much more difficult. in

the immediate timeframe then, the prime minister will go to the summit on thursday friday next week, is it possible, having asked for an extension on thursday, that monday tuesday wednesday next week you could hold a series of indicative votes in the house to find out what there is a majority for? because thatis there is a majority for? because that is the crux for the eu, what does this place want. it's a possibility and we have to move to indicative out swiftly but i think it may be quite difficult to do that just like that next week, although my personal view is we cannot delay this. but i think we need a breathing space where we can have the certainty we are not in a crisis which is about to lead to our crashing out on the 29th of march, where we can just crashing out on the 29th of march, where we canjust reset and have a discussion and say we have got to get on with this, what are the credible options that will have the house of commons support? we also need to get away from this idea that

just by running down the clock the house could be persuaded to vote the current deal through. i think the current deal through. i think the current deal through. i think the current deal is finished. my anxiety is that even if the prime minister we re is that even if the prime minister were to get it through by arm—twisting, the consequences subsequently would unravel because you have then got to have primary legislation to implement it. i really think it's been rejected, it is unfair in a way on the prime minister, she has done her best, but the truth is parliamentarians and politicians look at this deal and they are not happy with it. my view is the entire brexit project is flawed and this is one of the challenges we are now confronted with. one of the erg lawyers with us this evening said the only thing that would change their view is a unilateral exit mechanism and we know... it's never going to happen. you have some french ancestry, i know you have been meeting people in the european union this week, the

french side, they were here in london. it is the view in the french camp this would have to be a year—long delay but of course there will be suspicion the other way that you don't want brexit, the longer you don't want brexit, the longer you drag it out, the more likely it is we get to a people's vote and put brexit to bed. i'm not sure. you get mixed messages from different people you speak to throughout the european union. you speak to one minister in the french government, you will get one impression, you then hear the french president say something slightly different. my best impression is they will give us a short delay because they don't want us short delay because they don't want us to crash out but if we want a longer delay and they may well think thatis longer delay and they may well think that is going to be needed, then they will want to see some sense of progress and purpose in what we are trying to do with it. that is going to cost. the rebate will disappear, 13 billion they are saying for the year. ultimately even if we are leaving we will be having to pay so

i don't know what the cost will be, this is why it is in our interests to get on with this. we cannot afford to push back the date and find in nine months that we come to the cliff edge again. the public will think this is extraordinary, even though i have to say in fairness to my colleagues the reason why this is happening is because every time you look at a brexit option, it doesn't look good. that calls into question what we are doing, but the only way of reversing this decision and getting a conclusion is going back to the public and saying these are the options, make your choice. as a democrat i'm quite prepared to do that but i'm not prepared to see us crash out without a deal which would bea crash out without a deal which would be a catastrophe. i think it would be a catastrophe. i think it would be an appalling outcome and it would affect every person in this country adversely. we are out of time, dominic grieve, thank you. should the negotiation carry on with this prime minister, before you go? no, i

have no desire to change the prime minister at all but she will have to show imagination and flexibility to get us out of this problem. that will be the process this week. an important vote tomorrow to take no—deal off the table and business people will be watching that closely, then the vote on friday to demand an extension to article 50. christian, thank you. those of you watching, if you have questions as we go through the hour, send them my way. dominic grieve calling for his prime minister to show flexibility, but on the red lines, on the things she feels to has to give to people of the uk she showed almost no flexibility. it remains to be seen after this is defeated a second time whether she changes tack. let's show you what is going to happen next because we are left with to likely options now, either no—deal brexit

ofa options now, either no—deal brexit of a brexit. tomorrow, mps will have a free vote on whether the uk should choose a no—deal brexit — that would mean leaving without any arrangements in place forfuture relations with the eu. if the mps say yes, that's what will happen on 29 march. if they say no, mps will vote on thursday on whether to request a delay to brexit. if they reject asking for a delay, then the uk still leaves with no deal. if they say yes to a delay, then theresa may will need to request that from the eu. as we have just been hearing, as we havejust been hearing, we don't even know if the uk were to ask for that how long it would ask for or how long the eu may agree to. adam fleming has more on this.

yesterday there was a first discussion amongst the eu 27 at ambassador level the date they had in mind that they discussed around the table was the 24th of may because that is the day after the uk would have had to hold a vote for meps to come to the european parliament in strasbourg, where i am 110w. parliament in strasbourg, where i am now. so that is the initial thought, but then you speak to people and there's a whole range of views. some people say you can have an extension up people say you can have an extension up to the 1st ofjuly because that would be the day before the new meps come to strasbourg for the new european parliament. then you get other people saying an extension could go beyond that and you would either have to have the uk taking pa rt either have to have the uk taking part in the european elections, even though the uk is leaving, which would just appear bizarre and would bea would just appear bizarre and would be a quite bizarre political experience in the uk. and who knows what kind of meps would be sent to strasbourg as a result of that. or you would have the uk not taking

pa rt you would have the uk not taking part in the elections but still being in the eu which would be an enormous breach of eu law which would mean a court case with the eu taking the uk to court for breaking the law in quite a massive way. this is relevant to what adam was saying. this is the final paragraph ofjean—claude juncker‘s letter to donald tusk. "the uk's withdrawal should be complete before the european elections that will take place between 23—26th may this year. if the uk has not left the eu by then, it will be legally required to hold these elections." so these elections at the end of may, jean—claude juncker saying if you are not gone you are going to have to take part. here's dan hodges from the mail on sunday: "despite denials from cchq, now understand officials have indeed

told tory associations to begin preparations for european election campaign." we can't be sure what preparations are being made but we can be sure there is a possibility that the uk may still take part. let's bring in vicki young to get more analysis on the whole situation. she is live from inside the palace of westminster. let's ta ke the palace of westminster. let's take a moment to talk about the brexiteers. some people watching may be confused as to why, when given an option to get the thing they have been campaigning for thorough generation, they skewered it. yes, that was a powerful argument theresa may is trying to put forward, to say we are 17 days from brexit happening, vote this deal through otherwise the uncertainty means you cannot guarantee it will happen. their response was to say for them they think theresa may's deal is so bad that in some cases staying in would be better but theyjust don't think it adds up to brexit. they

don't think it fulfils the promises that were made. they would say the conservatives in their own ma nifestos, conservatives in their own manifestos, they don't think the uk would be free enough if you like from the eu and all the rules and regulations that go with it. that is why they so firmly tonight again rejected it. the other option of course, the dup are very upset about the idea of the so—called backstop. they don't want to be treated differently from the rest of the uk so that is in the mix as well. i think it is perplexing certainly to some of their colleagues who are getting irritated with them to say there are lots of them who voted remain, and lots of them are voting tonight to put the deal through for brexit so that's the dynamic at the moment. and i know brexiteers are not one homogenous group but as you talk to them this evening, what is their desired deal? is it no—deal or going back to the eu and doing this

allagain? going back to the eu and doing this all again? it is hard to know because as you say there is a split in what they think, given some of them have voted for theresa may's deal, some have voted against it. i'm not sure they have a clear plan. there are some who would actually t there are some who would actually opt for a no deal scenario, they think that is the best thing to do, a clean break which they don't think the uk would pay the 39 billion to the uk would pay the 39 billion to the eu. not many, maybe 20 or 30 of them. the others don't like the way theresa may has done this. they think they would give a better vision and they could maybe negotiate something much better. a lot of them are talking about a transition, an extension of some kind in order to prepare for no—deal. as michel barnier said, thatis no—deal. as michel barnier said, that is not on offer. i'm going to come back to you in a couple of minutes if that's ok. chris mason says downing street say this. laura

kuenssberg says... and this is also relevant. adam fleming, wejust heard and this is also relevant. adam fleming, we just heard from and this is also relevant. adam fleming, wejust heard from him... if you were wondering exactly how the european union was reacting, we have already had statements from mark rutte saying he regrets what's been happening, we have also heard from the austrian government. we know angela merkel has also spoken as well. let's get more on this story with this clip. i think if the deal doesn't get through tonight, there will have to bea through tonight, there will have to be a general election because this parliament now looks like a failing parliament. we are elected to make decisions, we are elected sometimes

to make imperfect decisions because defection is often an illusion. if we cannot decide tonight to leave the eu under the terms the prime minister has negotiated, i cannot see how this government can continue in office. she will have to see a new mandate. that is one senior conservative. turning his attention to the general election. is there a broader appetite for a general election among the mps you have been speaking to, vicki? no, a lot of them are talking about it because they cannot see any other way through this. theresa may lost her majority, she's propped by the dup although of course she isn't tonight, so it's a massive problem. it's not just tonight, so it's a massive problem. it's notjust this legislation, it's all sorts of things. she can get nothing through parliament because she has to have everyone onside and quite often they are not. the mechanism of getting to a general election is also trickier because we

have fixed term and is now so you need a vote of no confidence in the government, there would then be two weeks forjeremy corbyn to get together some kind of alliance to form a government, all you need two thirds of the total number of mps, that's 434, devote for an election so it is quite hard to get to, especially if you consider things like mps who have gone on to become independents, they are not ready to fight for an election at the moment so they might not vote for one and if you don't have lots of tories it isa if you don't have lots of tories it is a very hard thing to get to. hard to get to a general election, perhaps easier to replace the prime minister if you are a conservative. is there an appetite to do that? there certainly is. it's hard to find supporters who think she has a long—term future in thatjob. i'm not sure they feel now is the right time to do that. there is a mechanism in the conservative party,

they tried that and failed so she is safe in those terms until december but that doesn't mean the pressure won't get so much that the party hierarchy go to her and say it is time to give up on this, but at the moment she's carrying on and people are not ruling out the possibility ofa are not ruling out the possibility of a meaningful vote three sometime in the next couple of weeks. hold on, let me go back over that, you are suggesting an option where the same deal is brought back before brexit day of the 29th of march? yes because the scenario could be asked to asked to go to the eu to ask for an extension, what if they say there can be no extension whatsoever? that might focus the minds of mps. or they might say you can have several yea rs, they might say you can have several years, then she will say let's try this one more time. you can have my deal or no deal scenario and she might think the numbers could be there. that is certainly what people here are talking about. thank you for the moment. if you are watching

and want more background on any elements of the brexit story, you can get it through the bbc news app and website and if you are just switching on to the bbc news channel or elsewhere on bbc world news, the story here is that theresa may's brexit deal has been defeated by a huge margin, 149 votes, defeated for a second time and we are all trying to work out where the uk goes from here. let's bring in two regulars, christian fraser we have already spoken to but he isjoined by his other half, rob watson. rob, we haven't heard from you yet so first of all what are you making of this? i'm tempted to treat this like a foot ball i'm tempted to treat this like a football match. i don't think the game is going well, it is looking grim for the home team, but actually no, to be perfectly serious, my boil down of this is that theresa may is ina down of this is that theresa may is in a profound crisis. the country is

ina in a profound crisis. the country is in a profound crisis. the country is in a profound crisis. the country is in a profound crisis. her governing conservative party is massively dysfunctional in divided, parliament is divided, the country is divided, business is despairing and we still don't know how brexit will end but apart from that obviously everything is fine. now you have cheered me up let's get into some of the questions from the viewers. the first one from steve, saying what happens to the irish border if there is no deal? we we re irish border if there is no deal? we were just discussing this. obviously there over 300 miles of irish border, it's not very easy anyway to police it unilaterally. the irish side has said from the start they wouldn't be putting infrastructure back on the irish border so they wouldn't enforce a backstop. everyone says there you go, why don't wejust everyone says there you go, why don't we just say no to the backstop and forced the irish side to impose it? of course the obvious answer to thatis it? of course the obvious answer to that is you have still got to have a trading relationship with your nearest neighbours and if you poison

the well of negotiation right from the well of negotiation right from the start by saying we are not going to do it, you will have to do it, you won't get very far with your future trading relationship. there has been some speculation may be the eu would have to put some sort of checks on irish ports in the irish sea between ireland and the european union but fundamentally it would poison the well of the negotiations. they are very keen to sort it out, the real issue here, i can't think of anyone, i can't think of any experts where, two countries, side by side, and don't have a border when they are not in a customs union together... we will have to find something new if it is to work, this is an interesting question, could the uk be trapped inside the eu with an indefinite extension of article 50? i couldn't say that i was familiar with every single treaty, it seems to me that all these things are

doable in some way, legally, it is just politically, is that sustainable? just politically, is that sustainable ? clearly just politically, is that sustainable? clearly both united and the european union want to resolve what to do about the result of the referendum, it has taken nearly three years so far and i suspect there is going to be at least one extension, and i think, for me, the bigger question is, once you have the extension, does that in some way break a taboo, that britain is not leaving on march 29, and then suddenly all sorts of unpredictable possibilities open up? i don't know, i think anyone who pretends that they know what is going to happen next is a con artist! the crux of this is, when they go back to the summit, soon after the summit, and so, we need the extension, fundamentally they will ask, what is it for? how long you want it for? if you can't get an agreement in the

parliament, is there any point having a short extension? it really does have to be a long one. looking at the parliamentary calendar, in europe, in the next few months, obviously they break for the elections on the 23rd of may, but then, the meps are not going to be in place untiljuly, then you get commissioners, they must be approved, there is no one at home until august. the extension has to be longer than that. longer than a couple of months if you don't know what you will do with it. just to stir the pot, let say the european union asks, what do you want the extension four, and we say, i'm really sorry, we don't know...! in that case... i think it would be then that the european union say, it must be a longer extension, we will not play this game indefinitely. could you be trapped indefinitely in the extension? i doubt it, at some point, reason would have to come to the fore! you would have to say, will you stay in the european union?

just as it has so far... (!) laughter. could the eu say no to an extension, i think, technically, could the eu say no to an extension, ithink, technically, yes, in reality, unlikely. and another question here, will we contribute to the eu next budget if we ask for an extension? getting technical!” the eu next budget if we ask for an extension? getting technical! ijust put that point to dominic grieve. i know there were 16 million people who wanted to stay but 17 million said they wanted to leave, and then you say, we will say for a long period, and then you say to the british taxpayers, you have to pay for it. 1 billion euros per month. as members of the european union, we get a rebate and pay only 7 billion into the pot, we will be paying much more for no certainty. i always go back to the old jim principle on this, if you are a member of a gym,

you expect to pay your dues, in a funny sort of way, that has been the whole brexit issue, critics would say, britain has wanted to carry on using some of the equipment in the gym but without abiding by all the rules. let me add an asterisk to this, this is unprecedented, we do not know the answers, we are speculating with some of the different aspects, putting them together but really, nobody knows. don't give the game away(!) laughter a couple more questions, pro " b rex it" a couple more questions, pro "brexit" campaigners tweeting me saying, all of this is meaningless, the rule is we must leave on the 29th and if there is not any other laws passed, that is what will happen. is that right? the law is that we leave on the 29th. do you wa nt that we leave on the 29th. do you want to take that one? the first thing to say is, article 50 is sent down by statute, emotion does not override statute, the only way to

get rid of it is if the executive decides to take it off the table and they have to put a motion through that the house will vote on. the big conundrum here, theresa may has set down her red lines, we are leaving, she says, repeatedly, on march 29, we now think there will be a short extension, but she has always said she wants to uphold the referendum. so, she will have to cross an awful lot of red lines to take that off the table. she will have read all over her shoes, but what she has said will happen on this vote on thursday, mps will be asked to vote foran thursday, mps will be asked to vote for an extension, she will then go to brussels, and what will happen if she will agree a date and then there will be a new law passed, the new law of the land to replace the law saying that we left in march 29 would be... for someone who always plays the long game, she wants to plays the long game, she wants to play the short game, only once a couple of months and in the house when she stood up, she said, with a

very croa ky when she stood up, she said, with a very croaky voice, this does not a nswer very croaky voice, this does not answer any questions, you still have to make a decision on what you want and if you don't, if they cannot come to an agreement, something has to give that takes article 50 off the table. briefly, as you were saying, this is the whole point, these are not normal times, this is not a government in control, this is not a government in control, this is not a government in control, this is not a brexit process that anybody can confidently say, this is where it will end up. one last one for you, this has caught my attention, if you had a brexit time machine, what moment would you go back to, where did it all go wrong. i asked that question not by passing comment on whether it is a good or bad idea but even those people who wanted it surely would not have advertised being 17 days away from the exit date and us being in this situation! if you went back to that as a brexiteer, you would go back to the point of triggering article 50, why trigger it when you don't know what

you want. immensely leading question, if you could go in a time machine, i suspect, question, if you could go in a time machine, isuspect, if question, if you could go in a time machine, i suspect, ifi question, if you could go in a time machine, i suspect, if i take the copout answer, i bet david cameron, if he had a chance, would turn it back to the moment when he said, do you know what, cracking idea if we had a referendum on our membership of the european union. he would say, do you know what, i think i may call that one differently! both of you, for the moment, thank you, way more questions than we have time for, if you go on to twitter, you can help us you go on to twitter, you can help us out. couple of other ones. i was going to highlight one saying, can the eu say no to an extension, technically, it could, although all the signals coming from brussels are that they will listen to the uk if it asks for more time. let me show you what was in theresa may's deal that was rejected for a second time today. what is in it matters in

understanding why it has been rejected. the divorce deal is around £39 billion, around $50 billion. once the uk has left the eu, all european union nationals that have a valid passport will be able to register for settled status. and then the withdrawal deal also defined a transition period, lasting until the end of 2020, many believe a transition period is crucial to reducing economic risk, it keeps the uk in the eu —— and the eu aligned on trade while a new deal is worked out, no deal "brexit", that means no transition period, and in the short term, it means the uk must play by

eu rules, and is subject to the ruling of european courts but will not have a say in eu affairs, brexiteers do not like that but for a short period of time, they have largely accepted that idea. the most controversial of all within this proposed deal, the irish border backstop, this is a safety net that guarantees no hard border between northern ireland and the republic of ireland, and today, we have heard theresa may trying to convince and in the end failing to convince the mps that her deal does deliver on these issues. the end of free movement and its replacement with a skills —based immigration system delivered by the deal. the end of ecj jurisdiction in the uk, the end of the common agricultural policy. the end of the common fisheries policy. all of these are delivered by the deal. the closest... just a moment... the closest possible economic relationship with our

nearest neighbours outside of the single market and the customs union, able to trade freely without tariffs or rules of origin checks. protection for the just supply chains that provide the livelihoods for millions of families. the ability to strike free trade deals around the world, all delivered by the deal. worth emphasising, we cannot say this enough, this proposed deal is the withdrawal deal, it is not any future trading relationship, so, some would say, this is the easy a bit and not even thatis this is the easy a bit and not even that is proving easy. we had the so—called red lines, when she became prime minister she famously said, brexit me and is brexit and she has very firm ideas of what brexit means. we understood this injuly, the white paper, in it it was clear that the prime minister wanted to ta ke that the prime minister wanted to take the uk out of the customs union that allows the uk to cut its own trade deals and get out of the eu

single market because the prime minister believes ending freedom of movement within the eu is one of the key reasons people voted for brexit. and, as we heard, ending the jurisdiction of the european court ofjustice over european affairs, and as previously mentioned, on citizens‘ rights, that moment will arrive but not for a number of yea rs. arrive but not for a number of years. all of that place into the issue of the irish border backstop, because the big question is, how can theresa may stick to the red lines while at the same time the european union insists on protecting the single market, and insists, both sides insist, there cannot be a hard border on the island of ireland. so far, no plan has been found that does this that can get through the uk parliament and as rob was saying, he is not aware of anywhere where you have two countries bordering each other with no infrastructure on the border but which are not within a customs union. it will have to be a customs union. it will have to be a first if it gets done. here is

theresa may talking on this issue. not a focus on legal changes, the fa ct not a focus on legal changes, the fact there are legally binding changes as a result of the discussions, since the house vote on the 29th of january. let me complete this. the right honourable gentleman is absolutely correct, the danger for those of us who want to deliver to have faith in the british public and deliver on the vote for brexit is that if this vote is not past tonight, if the deal is not passed, brexit could be lost. and it was not passed, theresa may‘s bill was defeated for a second time, a member injanuary, mps rejected it by an enormous margin, they defeated it by 230 votes, historic defeat, and two weeks later injanuary, parliament voted on what was called the brady amendment, giving the prime minister amendment, giving the prime minister a mandate to go back to brussels and demand changes to the irish border backstop, i will change it or replace it, she said, last night, she went to strasbourg for last

minute meetings with the european union, and she came back not with a change to the withdrawal deal but various legal documents, the backstop had not been removed, instead, further emphasis is place on the fact that the backstop is intended to be temporary. then all eyes turned to this man, geoffrey cox, attorney general, central in this because his legal advice was going to guide a lot of mps, and here it is, when it arrived, he said the risk of the uk being tied to eu rules indefinitely remains unchanged, and the moment that advice came out, it was looking incredibly difficult for the prime minister. we heard the attorney general in parliament earlier. such an event in my opinion is highly unlikely to occur, and it is both in the interests of the uk and the eu, to agree a future relationship as quickly as possible. were such a

situation to occur, however, let me make it clear, the legal risk, as i set it out, in my letter of the 13th of november, remains unchanged. mark, you have been looking at all of these developments through the prism of northern ireland politics, how do you read them today? obviously this is another big defeat for theresa may, she has been able to shave some of the scale of the defeat that she suffered in january down by persuading some of those who are committed to brexit within her own parties ranks, that the possibility of losing the potential for brexit altogether is they are, and that is why some of them have come on side but the democratic unionist, extremely concerned about the border backstop, they feel northern ireland may be treated differently to the rest of the uk,

and therefore imperilling their position within the uk, they were not convinced, particularly when they saw the legal advice from the government senior law office, of the attorney general, saying, still the uk could be stuck in the backstop. do the dup understand they are asking something of the european union which the european union has consistently said it will not give? yes, they have been involved in pretty high—sta kes negotiations yes, they have been involved in pretty high—stakes negotiations over power sharing beforehand and they believe you can play this right down to the wire, and the union will give more, as it was what was on offer was the possibility of a unilateral suspension of these mechanisms of the backstop, if there was bad faith shown to be involved. when it came down to it, they said it was not what they wanted, which is that the uk should be able to get out on its own terms. their basic concern is that ultimately in the future they

feel they could leave northern ireland behind, effectively within the trading regulations of the eu, and that will weaken the union, of course, theresa may sees it differently. that is the concern of the democratic unionist. they are a powerful voice in the british parliament but the majority of opinion in northern ireland was for remaining in the eu, not particularly represented there because we have irish nationalist, sinn fein, who do not take their seats, so only one mp from northern ireland who supports this backstop actually takes their place in the house of commons. and they say that tomorrow, when this is put to the vote, they will vote to leave no deal as a possibility on the table, they see this as an important bargaining chip for the uk, because they believe the possibility of disruption in the event of a no—deal brexit will scare the eu into making more concessions. they have taken a ha rd more concessions. they have taken a hard line about that, even though there is quite a lot of indication

in terms of the government‘s own projections to suggest business, because there is a land border between northern ireland and the irish republic is very exposed to a no—deal brexit and the government will publish some of its plans for dealing with the border in a no—deal brexit scenario tomorrow, and probably will not make pretty reading forfarmers probably will not make pretty reading for farmers and so on, probably will not make pretty reading forfarmers and so on, in northern ireland. thank you very much, political editorfor northern ireland. thank you very much, political editor for brick bbc northern ireland. some of the tweets coming in. a cheer from a cheerfrom some a cheer from some of the opposition benches and a bow from some of the tory mps, when that happened.

the message from michel barnier, eu's the message from michel barnier, eu‘s lead brexit negotiator is, we have done our bit, same message, the problem is now in the uk, it is for theresa may to work out what parliament wants, and to find if you can geta parliament wants, and to find if you can get a version of this deal through parliament, no sign of that happening anytime soon. probably a goodidea happening anytime soon. probably a good idea to take a breath and remind where we got to. this theresa may‘s brexit deal has been completely, resoundingly rejected for a second time, the first time was injanuary, second time today, these are the

numbers. it is a defeat of 149 and if you think, that is down on the 230 last time, it is, but in any other context, this is an historic defeat with the way that the political system works. this cannot be mentioned enough, unless something changes, the ee cat matt —— unless something changes, the uk will leave the eu in 17 days and we have absolutely no idea of whether it will happen, how it is going to happen, when it is going to happen... this is what the prime minister said when she faced defeat again. voting against leaving without a deal and for an extension does not solve the problems we face. the eu will want to know what use we need to make of such an extension, and this house will have to answer

that question. does it wish to revoke article 50? does it want to hold a second referendum. yes! booing or, does it want to leave with a deal but not this deal? these are unenviable choices. thanks to the decision that the house has made this evening, they are choices that must now be faced. remember, you would interview eu officials after the vote and they would say remarkably similar things, the eu has been on script as 97 countries most of the time during this process. he regrets the fact it did not do

the trick. the reason that is a relevant comment, these european elections at the end of may are putting huge pressure on the european union, populist party is doing well in a number of eu countries, brexit is not the only concern and they are looking for a pro—european message across the board, this is the austrian europe minister saying, that was a message we heard from michel barnier today, saying, we are escalating still further our preparations. and now we can speak with katia adler, bbc europe editor, she has analysis of where we have got to. translation: today is an important day, in the 27 member states,

represented byjean—claude juncker and michel barnier, we have once again made clear far—reaching proposals to take britain‘s concerns into account and find answers to them. because we want corporation, we wa nt them. because we want corporation, we want britain to leave in an orderly manner, it is now the task of the british parliament to take decisions. you don't need me to tell you that was not katia adler, that was angela merkel speaking before the defeat of the deal, but we suspect you know —— angela merkel knew which way it was going. katia adler says, we have run out of ideas, when says, what might happen if there was a defeat, and of course there has been, this time we can hear from katia adler, there has been, this time we can hearfrom katia adler, she is in strasbourg with the eu reaction. the rejection of the deal makes the possibility of a no—deal brexit even more probable, even if parliament

voted to avoid a no—deal brexit, you will need to unite around something evenif will need to unite around something even if there is an extension, short or long. what is the guarantee that a solution can be found. the eu says it will be continuing the no deal preparations, and it is open for a request from the united kingdom for an extension, for delaying the brexit date, but the eu says it wa nts to brexit date, but the eu says it wants to know very clearly from the prime minister, for what purpose you would require this extension. just to give you a sense of the mood in the eu, it is a hardening mood, eu leaders want to avoid a no—deal brexit but they are not willing to do that at any price at all. lets go back to rob and christian. every step of the way i get messages from viewers saying, why aren‘t they in more of a rush? one viewer has just said, why can‘t they vote or no deal or extending article 50, and this proposed withdrawal deal, all in one

day? the answer is, that is how tradition works, table a motion, expected to allow certain amount of time to debate it and then have a vote. and also, there is no majority for having a vote. we don‘t know where the majority lies within parliament at the moment. what you will see in the coming days, pressure building for those indicative votes, is there something they can get around, is there a majority, for instance, for that norway plus plus, the customs too, whatever you want to call it. versions of soft brexit. it is a brexit which leaves britain closer to the european union than theresa may has envisaged. good to go back to basics, the reason we are where we are, simple and existential at the same time, britain's politicians cannot decide upon what to do. with

that, i will say thank you to the both of you. i cannot agree, we go on, 17 days to go, and lots of questions remain. all in all, looking very wild this week, severe gales at times and some heavy rain, rest of the week remaining unsettled, further heavy rain at times, disruption is likely to continue, keep tuned to local radio and subsequent weather forecast. storm gareth is the big story, showing up clearly here, pushing slowly into the north sea, strong north—west winds across the country for wednesday, once again, dust could reach in excess of 55, 65 mph through central portions of the uk. minor damage and some disruption. generally speaking,

places more blustery, quite a bit more sunshine around, into the sunshine, most of the showers in the north and the west. temperatures range in nine to 12 degrees. faction in the wind and it will feel cooler than that. into thursday, next area of low pressure pushing off the atlantic to bring another spell of rain and gales, that will spread across the country, thursday morning, the heaviest rain should clear away, and another blustery day, with sunshine and showers. best of the sunshine across southern and eastern areas, some of them heavy, may be thundery, with some snow over the higher ground. wind will be very strong once again. temperatures, ten to 13 degrees, perhaps across the south—east, good spells of sunshine. as we head on into friday, another area of low pressure moves in off the atlantic anchored to the north of the country, looks like northern ireland, much of scotland will

develop strong winds and heavy rain, further south, very windy, we could see sunshine and showers, sunshine and showers following on behind for scotland and northern ireland, these will be of a wintry flavour, over the high ground. this milder across the high ground. this milder across the south, 40 or 15 degrees —— 14 or 15 degrees. detail looks more blurred as we head on, area of low pressure will push up from the south—west through saturday, into the northern extent of this area of low pressure, at the moment looks like central areas will see a band of heavy and persistent rain, strong wind to the south, risk of gales, much of the north of the uk, bright but quite chilly for scotland, wintry showers around, to the south of the weather front, 12 or 13 degrees. as the area of low pressure pulls out into the north sea, showers, strong breeze to the northern half of the uk, signs of a ridge of high pressure trying to build in from the south, from the

south—west, which means southern areas should stay dry with plenty of sunshine, temperatures around seasonal average, may be a little below in the north. let's take a look at the jet stream, maintaining a pretty strong jet, from west to east, across the atlantic, there are signs it could move north, affecting the northern half of the uk with high pressure tending to build across the south and we could see the warmer side of that. the outlook generally is for a more settled condition, if high pressure does build, more changeable further north, areas of low pressure, wet and windy, and temperatures generally around average, milder than average across southern areas.