i thank ithank her i thank her for her john bercow now. i thank her for her courtesy in telling me in the house, but i am advised that the signatory, the right honourable lady, does. but i am advised that the signatory, the right honourable lady, doesli do welcome the assurances the right honourable lady, doesi do welcome the assurances that the minister... i welcome the clarity. she wishes... don't tell me it is not moved! order! i know perfectly well what i am doing! the amendment is in the ownership of the house, the right honourable lady has decided she does not wish to move it, another member does, it is really a very simple point for an experienced parliamentarian. the question is that amendment a be made, as many as are of that opinion say aye! aye! of the contrary, no! no! division, clear the lobby! so

mps are about to start voting. the government has put a motion down inviting the commons to vote for no—deal on march the 29th, but quite a few mps thought it was not tough enough, someone amendment has been made to toughen the no—deal stance. there were some doubts that it would be moved, butjohn bercow is now calling a vote not on the main motion but on the amendment to the main motion on no—deal. political editor laura kuenssberg is with us now, laura, last night the commons voted against the may deal, tonight it looks like it will go for no—deal. it looks like it will go for no-deal. that seems to be what is about to happen, and what is curious about to happen, and what is curious about this is more than two and a half years since the public voted for us to leave the eu, mps are voting about what they do not want to do. what they are not expected to say is that they don't want us to leave at all. the idea is they are going to express a very strong view that we should not leave the

european union without a formal arrangement about what happens after oui’ arrangement about what happens after our departure in place. that is because most mps are very conscious, and many of them very worried, about the kind of turmoil there might be if we suddenly leave at the end of this month, which is what the law currently says... not long to go! 16 days, without a business, governments around the european union, the security services, all those parts of the state having worked out and been confident what the world would look like the day after we go. so mps tonight, we expect, are going to say no to leaving with no deal, but also really important to note that it is not binding, it is not a concrete guarantee. they will express their will, but it does not change the law. this amendment that is being moved, which toughens up the no—deal sta nce moved, which toughens up the no—deal stance of the original motion, it presents a problem for a number of cabinet ministers, does it not? the

emotion itself is a free vote, they can emotion itself is a free vote, they ca n vote emotion itself is a free vote, they can vote how they want, but how will the amber rudds of the cabinet vote on this? it is extremely difficult, and all through today there has been and all through today there has been a lot of toing and froing over whether or not the government would try to force not just its whether or not the government would try to force notjust its mps but it's cabinet ministers to hold the line on this, to say no to this motion, which would in theory say we will never leave without a deal. yes, because the governmentjust discounts match the 29th in its motion. yes, important to be clear, the government's idea is that people can the government's idea is that people ca n ex press the government's idea is that people can express a view that we must not leave in 16 days, but this vote is about never leaving with an arrangement, and of course there are brexiteers, probably some of our viewers, people at the cabinet table, who are suspicious of that. i think that if parliament says that, somehow it might never ever happen,

and parliament all along has been hoping, somehow, to stop that, or at the very least move to a softer brexit, to use the jargon, a closer relationship with the european union that the prime minister has managed to design. so it will be critical and may even see some to design. so it will be critical and may even see some government ministers and may even see some government ministers resigning on this when we see the voting lists when they come through. viewers might not always know that, after the votes, it is not that we just see them wandering past the green benches, we get the lists of how every single mp voted. yes, not a secret vote, important to know that. they are counting the votes now as they walk through the division lobbies on these no—deal amendment to the main government motion, we will get the result at about 7:15, it could be quite close. let's go to europe editor katya adler, who is in brussels, after being in strasbourg last night. is it also likely that tomorrow night the commons will vote... the prime

minister requesting an extension to the article 50, the brexit negotiating process, is brussels gearing up to meet that request, and how will it do it? well, i have to say, at the moment, hearts are really heartening in eu circles, and lam not really heartening in eu circles, and i am not talking about there was much maligned brussels bureaucrats here. actually, the european commission is more open—minded, i would say, at this stage than the eu member states themselves, and in the front line, those eu countries that the uk traditionally looked at as friendly, uk friendly nations —— much of the netherlands, germany, sweden, countries who are saying, we can't just grant an sweden, countries who are saying, we can'tjust grant an extension to the uk without knowing what it is for, and a uniform line coming from the eu member states and from the brussels institutions saying that

there cannot be any expectation mps‘ mind that if they vote for an extension to be leaving process, that it means they will be more negotiations with the eu on these brexit deal. that door, says the eu, is firmly shut. the to this impasse has got to come now from the uk. —— the solution to this impasse. whether it is no—deal, a different kind of deal, general election, a second referendum revoking article 50, that solution needs to come in the uk, and the eu once mps, they say, to be more realistic, not to chase an ideal brexit, but something they find tolerable at this late stage of the process. so there is concern tonight in eu circles, concern tonight in eu circles, concern too about upcoming european parliamentary elections, and having brexit potentially overshadowing those, when populist parties, marine le pen, matteo salvini, for example,

are likely to use brexit to push back against brussels. so consent tonight. i saw marine le pen in the latest poll only two points behind emmanuel macron, and if our traditional friends have doubts about extending, it may not be as easy as people in london think. let me ask you this, unlike the negotiations, getting an extension to article 50, that is entirely in the hands of the eu, they set the rules, they will set the conditions, they will say what we get and do not get, is that correct? well, under eu law, all 27 member countries have to say yes to an extension, otherwise it can't happen, and they can set the conditions. but to tell you about one of the issues they are worrying about tonight, what happens if they say to the uk that if the extension goes beyond the end of may, when the european parliamentary elections are held, that the uk will

have to field candidates in that election because of concern that if the uk is still a member at that point and doesn't take part in the elections, they will not be seen as legal, therefore all parliamentary processes after that will not be acceptable, if you like, in the eyes of the law. but what happens, eu leaders say, if they say that to the uk as leaders say, if they say that to the ukasa leaders say, if they say that to the uk as a condition but the uk chooses not to field candidates, what will the eu do, put the brakes on those parliamentary elections? so it is not just about the brexit deal parliamentary elections? so it is notjust about the brexit deal or an extension or not, it is about the impact on the rest of eu business. katya adler in brussels, thanks for that. let's recap how we got here — and what's up next. last night, theresa may's withdrawl deal was rejected by an overwhelming majority for a second time. 2112 backed her agreement with brussels, but 391 voted against it, so the deal was defeated by a landslide 149 votes. tonight mps are voting on whether, having rejected the may deal,

we should to leave the eu without a deal on the 29th of march. it's important to note the government motion only applies to that specific date. it does not rule out the prospect of a no—deal exit later on. now, if — as looks likely — mps vote against a no—deal exit on the 29th of march, they will then vote tomorrow evening on delaying brexit by extending article 50. that's the legal process that takes the uk out of the eu. orat or at least it is supposed to! and after that, what? well, we just don't know. in fact, nobody knows! i'm joined now by former labour adviser ayesha hazarika, the financial times‘ political editor, george parker, and tom harwood, who's a journalist and reporter for guido fawkes. welcome to you, george, people

watching tonight will a the commons voted against the may deal decisively for a second time, it looks like it will vote against no—deal tonight — what happens next? well, it is a good question. i think theresa may will make a statement immediately after the votes after these votes, and we are hearing she may announce the idea of a series of votes to give mps the chance to say what they would accept, so called indicative votes, and we had a hint of that from the chancellor, philip hammond, that that is the way the debate is moving, so the idea would be that the house of commons could express be that the house of commons could ex press a be that the house of commons could express a view on a second referendum or a much former close of union, like norway. i do not think this is an act of political genius, if they do not offer mps an indicative vote, there will be an effort by mps to force her to do that. if the government goes that way, in an attempt to grab back a process that it looks like it has

been losing control of, did not get the may deal, it is always said that no—deal was better than a bad deal, and it is asking mps to vote against no—deal! we know that tomorrow's amendment to extend article 50 was probably going to be amended to include the indicative votes on what you do want, if you don't like this, what do you like?! if she goes that way, it is turning back the process that parliament is taking control of. absolutely, lots of mps sitting in the house tonight in difficult position. no—one really knows in what direction it will go in. members have voted against a lot of things but they are yet to vote in favour of anything at all. voting against no—deal tonight doesn't solve any problem or prevent no—deal in any meaningful sense. it could prevent it on march 29, because the government could move a statutory instrument, a particular house of commons technique that would push the leaving date back. it could

delay it, but only with the consent of the eu, and the eu has been adamant they are not prepared to provide a long delay beyond the end of may, european election territory, and that gets tricky for everyone involved. so this is not a unilateral thing that parliament or the government can dictate, it has to be with the consent of the eu and all 27 member states of the eu. so thatis all 27 member states of the eu. so that is to be negotiated, and really there is still less chance of no—deal, and that is where the european research group mps, the eurosceptics in parliament, find themselves in a tricky situation. on themselves in a tricky situation. on the one hand, the chances of no—deal seem the one hand, the chances of no—deal seem to be diminishing, so some switched earlier this week into backing theresa may's deal as almost the only way to get brexit, but for others there is a glimmer of hope that no—deal is achievable, although it is diminishing. let me ask ayesha that, because mrs may will say, and she has endurance on this, ok, you

don't like my deal, but the commons has voted against no—deal, we could be infora has voted against no—deal, we could be in for a punishment beating from the eu when we ask for an extension, she may well come back before the end of march to have a third vote to see if more people fall in line. yeah, there is every chance that could happen. this is a woman he was very much wedded to her deal, even today her advisers have been saying, how can we find a way of bringing this back? third time lucky! or not! dob out the definition of insanity, doing the same thing over and over again but expecting a different result. we are in a difficult territory, either she does a deal with a customs union which would split the conservative party, or she goes for the nuclear option, age election or a referendum. and all these indicative votes are still going to be difficult because there still isn't a settled view in parliament. even within the labour party, that is not a settled view...

who knew?! i never noticed! stick with us, a lot to talk about, but vicki young is in the houses of parliament, vicki, explain about this amendment, what is now happening, what we are about to expect. there has been slight confusion about this all day.“ expect. there has been slight confusion about this all day. if you think the government is asking people to vote for not leaving without a deal at the end of march, this is saying the house of commons does not want to leave the eu without a deal ever, so this goes much further than what the government is proposing. it was originally put forward by a conservative mp and she decided to stick and vote on the government's motion. but we have ended up with a vote on this. it is significant because there are many mps who think there has to be a deal before we leave the eu, that it would be

catastrophic, saying no deal scenario would be terrible for the economy. it is important because conservative mps have been told not to vote for it. we will be looking to vote for it. we will be looking to see if there are any rebels. theresa may has a problem keeping all of her mps together and voting the same way. she has been forced into this position. she did not want any of these votes and did not want to ta ke any of these votes and did not want to take no deal off the table. the argument is it is they're almost as argument is it is they're almost as a way of getting a better deal, having it there as a threat. no one wa nts having it there as a threat. no one wants no deal, but it is there to try to force the eu to give us a better deal. lots of mps will say, no, it has to stay on the table, it is madness to go into negotiation and not be serious about walking away. we can see the teller is beginning to gather in the house of

commons by the mace. we hope to get the result very shortly. george, this could be quite close. i am not sure what the amber rides and other conservatives in the cabinet on the back benches do. do they go for this? i don't think they will. it could be close... let's go straight over to the house of commons. order, order. the ayes to the right, 312. the noes to the left, 308. the ayes to the right, 312. the noes to the left, 308. the ayes have it,

the ayes have it. unlock. order! order. we come now to amendment f for freddie in the name of the right honourable gentleman, the member for ashford, who moved it formally. the question is that the amendment f be made. as many as are of the opinion, say "aye". to the contrary, "no".. division! clear the lobby. so, another defeat for the government and the government's motion tonight on no deal. an amendment was moved which toughened up the no deal amendment and it just which toughened up the no deal amendment and itjust squeaked through by four votes by 312 to 308, but a defeat is a defeat. the government did not want emotion to be this tough and the government has an amended motion on leaving without

an amended motion on leaving without a deal, which is very tough against leaving without a deal. let's go straight back to vicky young. what i have a making of this? people are gasping here because i don't think anyone expected this to go through. once caroline spelman said she would not put it through, you need to have rebel conservatives who were going against what theresa may had told them. i against what theresa may had told them. lam intrigued against what theresa may had told them. i am intrigued to find out who we re them. i am intrigued to find out who were those conservatives? were any of them ministers who may be forced to resign? what they have voted for is to have no deal being not on the table. the house of commons has said we are table. the house of commons has said we are not happy about leaving the eu without some kind of deal. we have to make clear that this is not changing the law. lots of people have been asking if it means anything. it does not change the law. many people would say this is morally binding on the prime minister, that these votes have come

forward in the house of commons has spoken. the other thing to say is that amendment is attached to what the government once and it effectively replaces what the government wants. the idea that there is no deal at the end of march has now gone. the vote will be on that motion as it has been changed by mps. it is a significant moment and it will be fascinating to see how the prime minister response to this. we know she had some of her cabinet ministers in with her before this vote discussing what they will do next and they probably did not see this coming. the comment has voted on a second amendment which has been put together by people who wa nt to has been put together by people who want to remain and those who want to lead. it is a different approach. they want to seek an extension and they want to agree a much longer extension period, but we would

continue to pay money into the european union and try and do a series of deals and we would eventually come out in december 2021 without an overarching deal. we will see how that goes. that is not expected to win. but then that amendment there was not expected to end. george, your reaction? i thought this would be an easy win for the government because i spoke toa number of for the government because i spoke to a number of ministers who did not wa nt to a number of ministers who did not want this motion being put at all and they were urging caroline spelman to withdraw it. the fact that government has been defeated on that government has been defeated on that suggests some ministers have resigned, they have broken the government whip. because the government whip. because the government whipped the conservatives to stop this amendment from going through? yes, this is the only vote tonight where the government has whipped the mps to oppose the motion. this is quite unexpected and theresa may will be devastated. but

it is an important vote. it basically says no deal is off the table. for the foreseeable future? yes. it does not yet change the law, it makes no deal on march the 29th pretty much gone. but it does not necessarily relate no deal later on u nless necessarily relate no deal later on unless the law is changed. but i guess the commons has spoken and there is a chance it will be change. this was a non—binding vote and nothing will happen as a consequence of it, but it puts the government in a difficult position and it means the government will probably seek that extension. it also confirms the worst fears of brexiteers in parliament. they know they are a small minority within parliament and it was in a very tricky position in terms of deciding what to do next and how to secure the cleanest possible brexit. this comes back to

my earlier point, it is now clear, if it has not been before and some wondered why it had not been clear, but we can never discount slow learners in westminster, no deal is now learners in westminster, no deal is now off the table in the foreseeable future, perhaps for ever. that may get brexiteers having second thoughts about opposing theresa may's deal. untilwe thoughts about opposing theresa may's deal. until we completely revoke article 50, no deal is not completely off the table. this makes what happens tomorrow very important in terms of the extension of article 50, what will it look like? if you have a short extension, she will come back and have another bite at the cherry. many brexiteers will think brexit delayed its brexit tonight. however i know yvette cooper and others, and the eu themselves have said, if you extend this, you may as well go long and if

you go long, we will only give you that consent if you have a general election or a second referendum. things will get really tricky tomorrow. if they go long, that will make brexiteers have more of a second thought because their dream is being kicked longer and longer into the distance. another amendment is peter carr's amendment which is we vote to pass your deal but you put it to the public. i think that ship may have sailed. stay with us because i want to go back to katya adler in brussels. the commons has voted for a tougher motion, i guess the british government that the european summit on the 20th of march is coming to us for an extension of article 50 because at the moment thatis article 50 because at the moment

that is all that is left. the eu is warning tonight as it did yesterday that regardless of how the vote turns out, and the panel mentioned it, it does not take no deal off the table, this is not legally binding. even though it is morally binding on the government, the fact is, says the government, the fact is, says the eu, that unless mps start to unite around a particular plan then no deal will happen by default anyway, even if it is not the 29th of march. it could happen at the end of march. it could happen at the end ofa of march. it could happen at the end of a short extension period. the eu is sounding the alarm bells and sees the mps as being unrealistic at this late stage of the process. you see all these individual factions late stage of the process. you see all these individualfactions inside the houses of parliament chasing after their own individual ideas and the eu is saying, please, be realistic, sit together and unite around one plan otherwise no deal will happen anyway sooner or later.

what we do not know, and maybe they know in brussels and it would be good if they could tell us, we do not know what the commons once. we know what it does not want and we have seen that tonight and we saw it last night, but we still do not know what it wants. that makes it difficult not just for what it wants. that makes it difficult notjust for british viewers watching this, but difficult for brussels to know what to do next. that is right and that is why we next. that is right and that is why we have heard michel barnier saying over and over again the house of commons keeps telling us what it does not want, but what does it want? he has had that month after month and we are so close to brexit day. it is still not clear if there is one particular way that the majority of mps can vote a row, whether it is a softer brexit or no brexit or whatever it is. the eu is anxious that the uk finds it. they are saying, listen, it has nothing

to do with us anymore. all the way through this process theresa may has tried to keep so many factions happy by being vague and promising contradictory things to different factions and looking to us in the eu, say the officials here in brussels, to somehow magically make it all possible. we did our best and thatis it all possible. we did our best and that is the withdrawal agreement on the table and there is nothing more we can the table and there is nothing more we can do. they are saying in the commission tonight, in this article 50 process, it was to come up with a negotiated withdrawal agreement. we have done that, clarify that and provided assurances on that. our bit of that is done and it is up to the uk. they are watching and waiting but with a mixture of frustration, trepidation, exasperation and they are grim faced. they should come over here to see how we are dealing with it. the news tonight is that

the brexiteer of hope was that if the brexiteer of hope was that if the commons did not vote for theresa may's deal that we would leave with no deal, that looks smashed to smithereens and that will not happen on march the 29. how will the world of business be reacting to these developments? they have been bysta nders developments? they have been bystanders and they have not liked a lot of what has been going on, so let's see what they think now. with me now is the former pensions minister baroness altmann, tim martin, the boss of wetherspoons, and minette batters, the president of the national farmers‘ union. ross, let me come to you first. you we re ross, let me come to you first. you were highly critical of the brexit process , were highly critical of the brexit process, but you must be happy that no deal has been ruled out.|j process, but you must be happy that no deal has been ruled out. i would be happy if no deal is finally and firmly ruled out. maybe not finally and family, but for now. for now it is good news that we have an

opportunity to get more sense back into this process, start caring about business, make sure that people in ireland and northern ireland have more sleep tonight. people are really desperate about what has been happening here. i am sorry but no deal cannot possibly be what 17.4 sorry but no deal cannot possibly be what17.li million sorry but no deal cannot possibly be what 17.4 million people voted sorry but no deal cannot possibly be what17.4 million people voted for. these tariffs that were announced this morning by the government in the event of a no deal, which i know caused farmer's anguish and concern, have now for the moment become academic. they have, but no deal is not off the table. it is still the only legislation in place and so until article 50 is revoked, we do not know what the extension period would look like. if it is revoked. the brexit process altogether. if it is extended, all things could come into play. exactly, it is not off the table, that is the point i am making. do you now except we are not

leaving with no deal?|j making. do you now except we are not leaving with no deal? i think that no—deal is probably most popular around the country, they all say that we did not vote for a deal... they were told that they would be ideal, the leave campaign said we would do a free trade deal before we even did the withdrawal agreement. and donald tusk offered a free trade deal, as he said in october, and we had the extraordinary situation where a remain prime minister turned it down. because that offer of canada plus plus plus wasn't for the united kingdom, it was for great britain, it didn't include northern ireland, which made it well—nigh impossible for a british unionist government, like mrs may's, to

accept. that is true, isn't it? the withdrawal agreement also has the irish backstop, which amounts pretty well to the same thing. if you want to leave the eu, the public is intelligent, it knows that you can't guarantee a deal with anyone, so if you remove no—deal, then that means that you might stay, if the eu won't give you a deal. showed brexiteers that oppose mrs may's deal, should they now be thinking that maybe they should give her a third chance?|j should give her a third chance?” think, and a lot of people think that mrs may's deal was brexit, so there was no point in supporting it, so if parliament wants to face the public who voted to leave and say, we public who voted to leave and say, we thought you only wanted to leave with a deal, i think there will be a major constitutional crisis, and i think parliament has got it wrong. they may have got it wrong or right, but the problem for people watching

tonight is that they have found this very uncertain for a long time. yes. and it has just become very uncertain for a long time. yes. and it hasjust become more uncertain, we don't know what is going to happen next. yes, nobody knows what is going to happen next. even the prime minister. basically, what we are listening to, what we keep hearing is that the people voted for this, the people voted, apparently, for no—deal, fine, no problem — that is not the case. the leave campaign clearly stated all sorts of benefits that you would have from leaving that we are not going to have — free trade deals that we are losing rather than gaining. the only way, surely, to actually know what people want is to ask them. you want a second vote? i don't want one, but i can't see any other way that would be democratic. in my view, the question should be, and it is up for discussion, do we

wa nt and it is up for discussion, do we want to leave on the terms that mrs may has agreed, the only terms on offer, or do we want to remain with the deal we currently have, which is better than all of those? that would better than all of those? that would be so popular(!) people would say you are reading the referendum, because you have picked the most unpopular way of living, mrs may's deal, and posit that against remain. iam not deal, and posit that against remain. i am not saying that would definitely happen, but parliament will have indicative votes, and there may be ideal which they would coalesce around, maybe customs union, single market. if that can be agreed... you would go along with that? yes. what do the farmers want? you represent the farmers of this country, do they want a reverse of the process, or do they want a better deal or no—deal key the first thing to mention is that this is about the withdrawal agreement, not the future relationship, it offered the future relationship, it offered the opportunity to leave in an

orderly manner with a framework for the movement of goods and people, in order to negotiate a frictionless trade deal, which could be canada or norway, whatever that might look like. we have said from day one it has to be an orderly departure. you have seen that there will be no tariff protection... we need to go back to the commons committee vote now on back to the commons committee vote now on the second amendment. the ayes to the right, 164. the noes to the left, 374. the ayes to the right, 164. the noes to the left, 374. so the noes habit, the noes have it, unlock! order. the question is the main motion as amended, that

is the main motion as amended, that is to say as amended by amendment a, the question is the main motion as amended. as many as are of that opinion say aye! aye! of the contrary, no! no! division, clear the lobbies! so now we move to the third vote of the night, the third and final vote, the second amendment, which involved almost a different approach to leaving the european union, an approach which mr barnier had said was never going to fly, barnier had said was never going to fly, it is academic, because it has gone down to a massive defeat, only 164 mp5 gone down to a massive defeat, only 164 mps voted for it, 374 against, so the commons is now voting for the government motion or no—deal, as amended, as toughened up, fair to say, by the amendment from mps on the backbenches. they are now going to vote on that, and i think it is clear it will go through, but we

will bring you the result. straight back to vicki, i think she has got an important brexiteer with her. there now becomes quite controversial, because the government is now against the way that its own motion has been amended, so the question is, what do you do if you are a minister who was very keen on taking no—deal up the table? you want to vote for this but the government is telling you not to, we need to be very beady—eyed looking at who will vote for that. before that, jacob rees—mogg, leading brexiteer, parliament has made its well known, it has said that it doesn't want a new deal brexit. the will of parliament is made known through legislation, not motion, we are ruled by law, not through arbitrary motions. the law still says we leave on the 29th of march 2019, that is both eu and uk law, that is not changed by the

motion. government policy may be differed, but the law is still the same, that we leave on the 29th of march. some would say the prime minister would be morally obliged to accept this, she said last night at the despatch box that if parliament voted for a no—deal brexit, she would adopt that as policy. can she not do the same here? the greater moral obligation is to be 17.4 million people who voted to leave, thatis million people who voted to leave, that is a duty, and it was in the conservative party manifesto that we would leave without a deal, no deal being better than a bad deal, but the moral authority of 17.4 million people cannot be cast aside forjust a motion, a emotion, not the law, but i'm a motion. revised but parliament and the house of commons has made its feelings known, as i say, and they can at any point, those numbers will always be there. you say you want a deal, but how can you get no—deal through this parliament, how can the prime

minister do that and go against what her own mps want? the legislation is already past. you still need to for no deal, don't you? no, the law is that we leave on the 29th of march, there are bills that would be convenient to past, but they do not need to be passed before. if parliament wants to make people's life more difficult, it would be very unwise, but parliament has passed the law that says we leave, the article 50 act set out to two—year time frame, and the withdrawal act to set the specific date. so the will of parliament, a lot of mps voting today voted for a process which led to the march the 29th being the date with or without a deal, and emotion cannot override the detailed process of statute, which is how we are governed constitutionally. the chancellor said that no—deal would be bad for the economy, he is very worried about that scenario, and yet you are

saying that is what parliament should vote for. tell me when the treasury last got a forecast right. they are such nonsense thatjohn osborne handed it over to the office for budgetary responsibility, the treasury said we would lose 2 millionjobs merely by treasury said we would lose 2 million jobs merely by having the temerity to leave. —— george osborne. there not worth the paper they had written on. if you would excuse me, i had better go and vote, but i will come back! jacob rees—mogg going to vote on the government's motion, which looks absolutely nothing like it did about half an hour ago. vicki, thank you very much for that. so the commons is now going through its third vote, voting on the government motion, as amended, toughening up no—deal, a sort of brexiteer last hope that it could have been amended to take a different approach to brexit, which would have involved a longer transition period, that has fallen

bya transition period, that has fallen by a huge majority, so it was known in the jargon as the malthouse plan b. in the jargon as the malthouse plan b, that is now the format malthouse plan b, that is now dead. more reaction to tonight's votes. let's get more reaction to tonight's votes. with me now is the political editor at the new statesman, stephen bush and the telegraph's brexit editor dia chakravarty. and we are also joined by bronwen maddox. if you are a committed brexiteer, you have now seen the may deal go down, you have seen your hope of a much harder brexit go down, you have seen the hopes of a no—deal go down, the malthouse compromise go down — what is left? the malthouse compromise was extremely ambitious, i didn't ever see the eu actually accepting it. correct, but it has gone down anyway. we can write that one off. the spelman amendment has no legal

effect, we know that, the only thing that it says is that parliament will not like a no—deal brexit to go through, but the eu's question, and my question, would be, what would be parliament allowed ? last my question, would be, what would be parliament allowed? last year, we did seea parliament allowed? last year, we did see a series of outs, injanuary 2018 and then injuly 2018 it was, with several amendments to do with staying in the customs union and staying in the customs union and staying in the single market also did not get through parliament, so the eu would be asking, as i and everybody else, what is it that parliament wants to do next? a voice we parliament wants to do next? a voice we may find out if there are a series of indicative votes, , we may find out if there are a series of indicative votes,, which could be an amendment made tomorrow night. bronwen, the question is this, where do we go from here? what happens now? we have to see where we are on extensions, that is tomorrow's discussion, because what the brexiteers are clinging to do, this has been a bad 48 hours for

them, they are saying this may be a strong expression of parliamentary will, but it is not binding, we are still technically out on march the 29th unless the prime minister agrees an extension and changes legislation. which is what jacob rees—mogg was saying. legislation. which is what jacob rees-mogg was saying. otherwise, they are faced with a very difficult decision that they did not want, between backing the prime minister's dale and possibly losing brexit to something much softer. knew are the institute of government, so you get to know these things — although in legal terms it is true that the law says we will leave on march the 29th, when parliament has voted the way it has, things will change, isn't that the practicality? we will not leave our no—deal. isn't that the practicality? we will not leave our no-deal. that is the powerful political point, and so it puts enormous powerful political point, and so it puts enormous pressure powerful political point, and so it puts enormous pressure on the prime minister to get puts enormous pressure on the prime ministerto get an puts enormous pressure on the prime minister to get an extension, and to start talking about other possible options, if she can't do that. stephen, as the fireworks go off,

the metaphorical fireworks of the government losing this amendment, another defeat tonight after losing on the big vote last night, there is another story going on behind—the—scenes. my understanding is that mrs may is still trying to put her deal back on the road, and that conversations are going on with the dup, geoffrey cox, the attorney general is involved in them, and she hasn't totally ruled out, in fact she may be actively working towards a third vote on how deal. there is still a lot of chatter that is going to happen, and considering what has happened tonight, her chances of reviving her deal are probably better than you might think. brexiteers have been given a terrible reminder that they may end up terrible reminder that they may end up witha terrible reminder that they may end up with a softer brexit even than the one they do not like from theresa may, so if it looks like the commons will cohere around something that brexiteers indie conservative party do not like, under those 75 conservatives who did not vote for her last night think it is a better

fullback than norway, the deal could come back to life. —— fallback. fullback than norway, the deal could come back to life. -- fallback. if mrs may comes back from the european summit on may the 20th, sorry, march the 21st, having been told by the house of commons to seek an extension, and she comes back and says it is a long extension, there area says it is a long extension, there are a lot of conditions to it, they wa nt are a lot of conditions to it, they want more money as well, isn't that another wake—up call?” want more money as well, isn't that another wake-up call? i think it certainly is. i think what they are banking on is that quite a few people in parliament know very well that not backing a no—deal and not backing the withdrawal deal, which the eu have said is the only deal, the eu have said is the only deal, the only thing that remains is to revoke article 50 or cancel brexit. revoking is different from extending, it ends the brexit process. that is the only thing we can do it unilaterally, all 27 have to agree to a delay, and they will ask, to what end an extension? what

brexiteers may be banking on is that there are quite a few people in parliament who want to revoke article 50 and cancel brexit, but they think it is too politically difficult to do, so they are playing political games to scupper brexit, not just by revoking political games to scupper brexit, notjust by revoking article 50. political games to scupper brexit, not just by revoking article 50.” think revoking is pretty unlikely, although in this climate nothing is unlikely, i should although in this climate nothing is unlikely, ishould make although in this climate nothing is unlikely, i should make that clear! what is likely is an extension of article 50 beyond march the 29th, but that is tricky for us, because asa but that is tricky for us, because as a country, we are essentially supplicants in as a country, we are essentially supplica nts in that as a country, we are essentially supplicants in that process, are we not? we have very few bargaining cards to play with the eu, they will in the end determined the length and purpose, or at least demand a purpose, or at least demand a purpose, true? that is true, i am interested in whether the prime minister wants to take a bit of

control of that process and say i will negotiate this extension on my own. will negotiate this extension on my own. technically she can. whether she tried to short circuit tomorrow's debate about extensions and strike back with the eu. but you are right, we do not have a lot of bargaining points in our negotiation. this has never happened before. it is difficult to speak of labour as before. it is difficult to speak of labourasa before. it is difficult to speak of labour as a single noun. even within jeremy corbyn's inner circle there are some people who are very happy about this and some who are unhappy. that is the difficulty. because brexit splits both parties it is ha rd brexit splits both parties it is hard to find an enduring majority for anything. let's go back to vicky youngin for anything. let's go back to vicky young in the houses of parliament. rumours are flying here as you can imagine. let's recap. the government is now putting through its motion which has been changed. mps are saying we are not prepared to leave

the eu without a deal. what is happening is they are being told, conservative mps, that you have to vote against that proposition. but we are vote against that proposition. but we are hearing lots of rumours there may be mps, even cabinet ministers, who have not followed that direction. what happens is the prime minister decides we will vote in this way, they tell mps what to do, and if you do not do it you normally lose yourjob. and if you do not do it you normally lose your job. that and if you do not do it you normally lose yourjob. that is why this is high—stakes lose yourjob. that is why this is high—sta kes stuff. we lose yourjob. that is why this is high—stakes stuff. we could see a whole group of people like david caulker, amber rudd, the chancellor philip hammond, who i very much against a no—deal brexit and it will be intriguing to find out how they voted and whether they keep their jobs at the end of this. coming back to your point, and we had from vicky that the conservatives could be deeply divided now, including inside the cabinet, on how they vote tonight. you say labour is as well.

you have to look at brussels now trying to work out how they help the british to leave. it is hard to know what to do. whenever you speak to a european diplomat and say what do you think the british want? they are used to systems of coalition where you have a broad consensus and we are used to wear one side wins and prevails. because parliament is so divided it is hard to work out what it is that you can give to get this moved along. even if they can give something in this parliament, the next parliament will want to rip it up next parliament will want to rip it up and start again anyway. let's go live now to strasbourg and speak to the former ukip leader nigel farage. do you accept now it is unlikely we will leave the eu on march the 29th? i think will leave the eu on march the 29th? ithink! will leave the eu on march the 29th? i think i do, yes. having said that, whatever was voted on tonight, the

legislation is still in place. if the prime minister held firm, we would be living on march the 29th and she has told the house of commons over 100 times we would, but ido commons over 100 times we would, but i do not think she and this government have got the will to see it through. the commons has voted against her deal, it has voted against her deal, it has voted against no deal, tomorrow will it vote to extend the brexit process? you must be worried that brexit might not happen at all now. well, look, i was more than prepared to accept a brexit deal with a series of compromises but i was not prepared to accept michel barnier‘s treaty which gave us a far worse situation than being members of the european union. that was wholly unacceptable. i think this, whatever parliament does, it is no longer representing the will of the people in this country. we are seeing a big coming together of people saying what is happening to our democracy?

in the end we will get brexit because the genie is out of the bottle. the trouble is we have got more battles to fight. the brexit process ca n more battles to fight. the brexit process can only be extended if all 27 eu leaders can agree. have you been lobbying any of your friends in the eu government about vetoing it? it would only take one. it would, thatis it would only take one. it would, that is right. i met michel barnier at nine o'clock this morning and i was there with all the group leaders of the european parliament. what was clear to me is there will be no blank cheque extended. my question was not about michel barnier, he is not one of your pals. my question is have you been lobbying any of your pals in the european government? for example the deputy prime minister in rome? i will do whatever i can to get a veto at the european council next thursday evening because that would mean we would leave with no

deal. let me come back to you, but let's go to the vote. this is on the motion as amended. the ayes to the right, 321, the noes to the left, 278. the ayes to the right, 321. the noes to the left, 278. so the ayes have it, the ayes have it. unlock. order. point of order. the prime minister. on that point of order, mr speaker. the house has today provided a clear majority against living without a deal. however, i will repeat what i have said before.

the house must calm itself. a long time to go, today and subsequent days. be calm. these are about the choices that this house faces. the legal default in uk and eu law remains that the uk will leave the eu without a deal unless... unless something else is agreed. the onus is now on something else is agreed. the onus is now on everyone something else is agreed. the onus is now on everyone of us in this house to find out what that is. the options before us by the same as they always have been. we could leave with the deal which this government has negotiated for the past years. government has negotiated for the past yea rs. we government has negotiated for the past years. we could leave the deal subject to a second referendum but that would rest no brexit at all.

damaging the fragile trust between the british public... damaging the fragile trust between the british public and the members of this house. we could seek to negotiate a different deal, however the eu has been clear that the deal on the table is the only deal available. mr speaker, ialso confirmed last night... order. the great likelihood, i await further comment, is that there will be further opportunities for these matters to be debated. but in the immediate term please let us have some courtesy. of that i think we can be sure, there will be further debate on these matters. the prime minister. i confirmed last night that if the house declined to

approve leaving without the deal, the government will bring forward a motion on whether the house supports on agreeing an extension to article 50 which is the logical consequence of the votes over the past two days in this house. the leader of the house will make an emergency business statement confirming the change to tomorrow's business. emergent we whatever will set out the fundamental choice facing this house. if the host finds a way in the coming days to support the deal it would allow the government to seek a short limited extension to article 50 to provide time to pass the necessary legislation and ratify the necessary legislation and ratify the agreement we have reached with the agreement we have reached with the eu. but such a short, technical extension is only likely to be on offer if we have a deal in place. the house has to understand and accept that if it is not willing to support a deal in the coming days, and if it is not willing to support leaving without a deal on the 29th

of march, that it is suggesting there would need to be a much longer extension to article 50. such an extension to article 50. such an extension would undoubtedly require the united kingdom to hold european parliament elections in may 2019. i do not think that would be the right outcome. but the house... house needs to face up to the consequences of the decisions it has taken. order. i thank the prime minister for what she has said. point of order, mrjeremy corbyn. mr speaker, tonight this house has once again definitely ruled out no deal. the prime minister said the choice was between her deal and no deal. in the last 24 hours parliament has

decisively rejected both her deal and no deal. an extension of article 50 is now inevitable, the responsibility of that extension lies solely and squarely at the prime minister's dora. but, extending article 50 without a clear objective is not a solution. parliament must now take control of the situation. in the days that follow, myself, the shadow brexit secretary and others will have meetings with members across the house to find a compromise solution that can come and support in the house. this means doing what the prime ministerfailed to do house. this means doing what the prime minister failed to do two yea rs prime minister failed to do two years ago in searching for a consensus on the way forward. labour has set out a credible alternative plan. honourable members across this house are coming forward with proposals. whether that is for a

permanent customs union, a public vote, norway plans, or other ideas, let us as a house of commons work now let us as a house of commons work now to find a solution to deal with the crisis facing this country and the crisis facing this country and the deep concerns that many people have for their livelihood, their lives, their future, have for their livelihood, their lives, theirfuture, theirjobs, their communities and their factories. it is up to us as a house of commons to look for and find a solution to their concerns. that is what we were elected to do. point of order, mr ian blackford. thank you, mr speaker... so, the prime minister responding to losing quite badly that toughened no deal motion, 320 we re that toughened no deal motion, 320 were further and 278 against even though the government was asking its supporters to vote against it. they lost because a number of major

conservative figures were extensions, including those in the cabinet. we have had one resignation from the government already tonight, sarah newton and the department for work and pensions. she hasjust resigned. dramatic events in westminster. the foreign exchange markets like what has happened, the pound is rising quite fast at the moment on overseas foreign exchange markets. let's go back to vicky youngin markets. let's go back to vicky young in the house of commons.” markets. let's go back to vicky young in the house of commons. i do not think many people expected this to be the result tonight. jacob rees mogg said these are not binding votes, they are not changing the law, but many people feel they will be morally binding on the prime minister. her reaction was to get up and say nothing has changed because she says in law we still leave without a deal by default. she is saying to mps you have to face up to responsibilities, we need to get a

deal through the option is get a deal through the option is get a deal through the option is get a deal through or revoke article 50 together. i do not think she was expecting ministers to resign or d efy expecting ministers to resign or defy her orders. she has ordered her mps and ministers to vote against something and they had voted for it. in normal circumstances you lose yourjob for that. in normal circumstances you lose your job for that. the in normal circumstances you lose yourjob for that. the rumour is that ministers were told if they abstained, then they could keep theirjob. that seems to be including people in the cabinet. this will just including people in the cabinet. this willjust enrage that city ares in the tory party. i had one of them saying they should all be sacked. this will not help with the cohesion of the conservative party, if there was any cohesion in the first place. bronwen maddox, explain how the will of the commons against no deal can be used to stop us leaving with no deal because that is how the law is at the moment. sorry? the law is

under the article 50 process if we do not have a deal, we leave with no deal, but the commons has quite clearly going against that, but it is not law. how does it become law? it does not have to become law in order to have its voice. it will be ha rd order to have its voice. it will be hard for the prime minister now to go against that. you are right, what the law says dell is relieved on march the 29. the government can then bring legislation to change that. she could put her statutory instrument to knock the date back from the 29th. she has to decide how far to knock it back, and that gets intertwined with the question of how long an extension might be. this vote has brought out the incredible divisions at the heart of government. extraordinary, the spelman

amendment, the rumours were... the toughening of no—deal. amendment, the rumours were... the toughening of no-deal. which take up lost five or votes, i am hearing but have not been able to confirm this, four ministers abstained, and when the cut loses by four votes, quite extraordinary. legal force or not, it has become clear the prime minister has no control over her party, as if we didn't know that already. what happens next? well, as you say, an impossible question! two things would have to happen if this is to have any meaningful status, which is to amount the withdrawal build you to look at the reference to the 29th of march. the big question will be, as you alluded to earlier, what happens when the eu says, it will be six months because we need to find out what will change... and we have got other fish to fry. a new president for the commission! if they say, we have had enough of yourdrama,

commission! if they say, we have had enough of your drama, could she come