hello. it's thursday. it's ten o'clock. i'm victoria derbyshire. as theresa may blames mps for the brexit shambles, who do you think bears responsibility? you come public, have had enough. you come public, have had enough. you are tired of the infighting. you are tired of the political games, tired of the procedural rails. tired of mps talking about nothing else but brexit. you want at this stage of the brexit process to be over and done with. i agree. i am on your side. is she on your side? is that what you think? tell us this morning who you think is to blame for the brexit chaos. is it mps as mrs may claims? is it her? is it the eu?

and we'll ask these mps as a result of mrs may pointing the finger at them, are they more or less likely to vote for mrs may's deal — you know, the one that they've voted down twice — if it's brought back to the commons next week? so it's mrs may's deal doomed and are we heading towards a new deal next friday? stand by. —— heading towards no—deal. anything to change and the next eight days. also today, the home office has been accused by a group of mps of serious failings in almost every stage of the process to send illegal immigrants home. we've spoken exclusively to two men who were wrongly forced to leave this country. they took me down to heathrow. it was like being on death row. i haven't got no medication. i haven't got no food no nothing. i haven't got no food no nothing. i haven't got any money on me and that is how they put me on the plane. and who can you get to help you if you think your child is carrying a weapon? nicola has six friends whose sons

have been stabbed to death. she got in touch with our programme to ask for help because she's worried her teenage son is in danger of getting into gangs. hello. welcome to the programme. we're live until 11 this morning. it is thursday morning. who do you think is to blame for the chaos over brexit? so many messages from you, as you can imagine. antonio on twitter: who ran down the clock to avoid a meaningful vote they knew they would lose? theresa may, that is who. and this one: in the end it comes down to the person at the top, allowing herself to be the puppet of the erg and the dup and her decision to call the election. i don't think i have seen anyone so arrogant since thatcher. martin: the conservative

party, david cameron, michael gove, the erg, nigel farage, their cronies, gambling on this to make their fortunes. cronies, gambling on this to make theirfortunes. john cronies, gambling on this to make their fortunes. john said: it is too easy and lazy to blame theresa may alone. it is all mps. they are only thinking along party lines and not the country. matt tweets: anyone who voted brexit should feel guilty for not listening to the facts before the referendum that predicted chaos. please keep your messages coming in and we will talk to a variety of politicians to see how they react to what mrs may had to say last night and if it will influence them either way when it comes to the next time they have got to vote on mrs may's brexit deal, whenever that may be. but there is the news withjoanna. —— first at the news. thank you. theresa may will head to brussels today to appeal directly for eu leaders to approve her request for a three month delay to brexit.

in a statement last night, the prime minister blamed mps for a failure to break the deadlock. but her remarks provoked an angry response from mps across the house, with some calling her comments toxic and reckless. new zealand will ban all types of semi—automatic weapons and assault rifles following the christchurch attacks. 50 people were killed at two mosques last friday. the alleged gunman had obtained a firearms licence in 2017. announcing the ban, prime ministerjacinda ardern said she expected new legislation to be in place within three weeks. police searching for missing student libby squire in hull say they are trying to establish the identity of a body found in the humber estuary. the 21—year—old disappeared after a night out in february. a major police investigation has been under way ever since. a number of missing person enquiries are being carried out in the area. mps have accused the home office of having a shockingly cavalier attitude towards the detention of people in immigration removal centres. the home affairs select committee began an inquiry after the bbc

highlighted examples of abuse. it's calling for sweeping changes and a time limit on how long people can be held. people who use health apps on their mobile phones are being warned their personal information may be shared with social media sites such as facebook and google. researchers of a study published in the british medical journal said app developers are being far from transparent about the data they share. developers insist they don't collect personally identifiable information. that is a summary of the latest news. back to you, victoria. thank you. the prime minister's cross, mps are cross, some of you are ci’oss, but where does the blame lie for the brexit shambles? it s not me, said mrs may last night. you, the public, have had enough. you, the public, have had enough. you are tired of the infighting. you are tired of the political games and the arcane procedural rails. tired of mps talking about nothing else

but brexit. you want this stage of the brexit process to be over and done with. i agree. i am on your side. it is now time for mps to decide. well, they have decided. they voted down her deal twice. a number of politicians have said it was a bizarre strategy to slag off the very mps she needs to vote for her deal if it comes back for a third vote next week. and some have responded with disgust at the pm laying the blame at their door. have a look at this from labour: the prime minister s pitting parliament against the people in the current environment is dangerous and reckless. yesterday her government attacked their civil servants. now she s attacking the mps whose votes she needs. it will have cost her support. lisa nandy was one of the labour mps the pm would have been hoping to get to back her deal. and it's not just opposition politicans. here's conservative sam gymah: resorting to the blame game

as the pm is doing is a low blow. democracy loses when a pm who has set herself against the hoc then blames mps for doing theirjob. distracts from art 50 extension, all part of her strategy to run down the clock and rule out other options. toxic. and there was this warning from labour's wes streeting: ive thought long and hard before saying this, but @theresa—may knows that mps across the house are subjected to death threats — some very credible. her speech was incendiary and irresponsible. if any harm comes to any of us, she will have to accept her share of responsibility. ex—conservative, now a member of the independent group, anna soubry posted this: the most dishonest and divisive statement from any prime minister. if ever a conservative needed a reason to leave the party, this is it. @thelndgroup welcomes you to a better way — to fix our broken politics and deliver the changes our country desperately needs. and scotland's first minister,

snp leader nicola sturgeon, had this to say: the one thing missing from that pointless pm speech was any acknowledgment of the massive responsibility she bears for this mess. she could have changed course after the first defeat of her deal. but she is still trying to force a choice between a bad deal and no deal. shameful. eight days to go! count them. with eight days to go until potentially the uk leaves the eu with no deal, in a disorderly way, today mrs may goes to brussels to formally ask for a short delay to brexit. her foreign secretary defended her on the radio this morning.

i think she was expressing extreme frustration with the way this process has been going on. and i think she was also reflecting the fact that people at home are getting very frustrated that the process is going on and on and it is not resolving itself and people worry about what may or may not happen in the future. but underneath what she was really saying is that in a hung parliament, mps have a different responsibility. so in a normal parliament where a government has a majority, it can get its business done with a majority in the house, then mps debate, criticise, do their normal things, come on the today programme and so on. in a hung parliament mps actually have to make decisions because government can't decide things on their own. jeremy hunt, currently the foreign secretary, someone who would be very likely to go for theresa may's job when she steps down or when she's brought down. so what happens if her deal is brought back next week? and remember, the speaker of the house of commons said the same deal couldn't be brought back, it had to be substantially different. but if it is brought back next week and rejected a third time, then what? let's talk to a variety of mps with a variety of views. conservative crispin blunt, he's comfortable with leaving with no deal and actively wants that to happen next friday. conserveatove mp and ex—justice

minister philip lee who quit injune in opposition to theresa may's withdrawal agreement. he wants another referendum. the labour mpjim fitzpatrick who was originally against the prime minister's deal but then said he might vote for it after all. and angela smith who recently left the labour party, now one of the new independent group of mps, and wants a second referendum. and from westminster dominic grieve who says he's never felt more ashamed to be a member of the conservative party. and of course your views are welcome. tell us who you blame and where responsibility lies for this brexit shambles. 0k, all of you, a huge choice for you now. are you going to vote for mrs may's deal if it is brought back next week? yes or no? crispin blunt? no. no. entirely possible. dominic grieve? rain no. 0k, entirely possible despite mrs may blaming you and your colleagues last night for the mess you are in?

i have said from the start that the options for me where if it was a choice between no—deal and her deal, i would take her deal. you could hardly call what the prime minister did yesterday a charm offensive. she is not influencing and winning friends. but i get her. she was certainly talking directly to me because i voted against her deal on two occasions despite instinctively being in support of it against no—deal. next week will be the last opportunity and i feel, no—deal. next week will be the last opportunity and ifeel, taking into account everything, my responsibility is to do what i think is the right thing to do and on that basis i will be voting for her deal next week because i think it is the best option left to us. i don't want no—deal. i don't want a delay. i certainly don't want an extended delay. the only right thing is to support the prime minister's deal. what do you think of what you said last night and pointing the finger at you lot? —— what she said. last night and pointing the finger at you lot? —— what she saidlj last night and pointing the finger at you lot? -- what she said. i am astonished, if i am honest. i think what we witnessed last night is a prime minister who has refused repeatedly to drop her red lines over a long period of time. she has refused to listen to the will of

parliament. she has refused to acknowledge that parliament had a definitive view on no—deal, which is that it cannot be allowed to happen. and she had turned around at the very la st and she had turned around at the very last minute and said it is all your fault. that isjust not prime ministerial, is it? how would you describe it, conservative crispin blunt? i think she was giving a rather clear message and she was following a strategy which is best designed to get her deal voted for, and that is presenting the house of commons next week with a binary choice between her deal and no—deal, leaving to wto terms next friday. you have heardjim explain leaving to wto terms next friday. you have heard jim explain extremely well the dilemma is that mps who voted against her deal for other reasons will now face if that is the binary choice. i believe she absolutely means that anti—has been clear that she wants to get us out of the european union on the 29th of

march. —— she has been clear. she only said it 108 times! that how disastrous would it be if we had no—deal? disastrous would it be if we had no-deal? but if you are supporting the prime minister's agreement, you are going to have to dump on no—deal because it would be dreadful. the remainers, no—deal is not an option, and we have had this discussion. we get into the detail of what it means to move to wto terms and actually a lot of work has been done to prepare for it and it will be perfectly well managed. there will be difficulties but in terms of the scale of the anxiety that has been brought up around it, we

can see that drift away to nothing. we have plenty of time to talk this morning but i want to go back to her comments last night. how do you react, philip? they were inappropriate comments. the person who wrote that speech! the prime minister is responsible for giving it but the person who wrote it should look in the mirror and consider their position. are you joking? the prime minister said those words to the nation. as i have just said, she is responsible for what she said. should she consider her position? i think she will have to consider her position this weekend anyway. she has three options. her deal is dead in the water. the statement last night was like putting the thousandth knife into her deal. it is not passing so then what is next? i think she had three choices. she pivots to what i would like to see, which is putting a deal, not necessarily the government's deal, but a deal to the public with remain as an option. she could embrace no—deal. and finally she could revoke and i suspect resign. those other three options. dominic grieve, what do you say about what theresa may said to the nation last night? the remarks were totally unhelpful from her own nation last night? the remarks were totally unhelpfulfrom her own point of view. i cannot understand the tactic behind it and they were also fundamentally wrong. she made similar remarks at prime minister's

questions. of course i understand her frustration but we have a representative parliamentary democracy and members of parliament cannot simply be asked to forfeit theirjudgment. and cannot simply be asked to forfeit their judgment. and their judgment has been actually pretty clear that her deal is flawed. 0f has been actually pretty clear that her deal is flawed. of course mps are arguing that from diverse viewpoints but her deal is clear. it doesn't match what people wanted from the referendum in 2016 and for me it would be quite plain it would be taking the country to a third rate future rather than remaining in the eu and she has known this for several months. to turn around and blame the house of commons for refusing to do her bidding seems to me an extraordinary thing to do and i also share the real disquiet at the way that she used inflammatory language last night against members of parliament. we are there to do

oui’ of parliament. we are there to do our duty when we take our oath and we should stop arguing and encourage people to start vilifying people for doing us, that is not right. you think she was staring at public anger and getting people to vilify you? the only possible way of interpreting her about it saying that she believes she knows what the public wants but she doesn't. her deal enjoys very little support. having said she knows what the public wants, she went on to say we should jolly well get on with delivering what she believes, and herjudgment is delivering what she believes, and her judgment is international interest, she believes. 0f her judgment is international interest, she believes. of course it stirs things up because it will encourage people who think she is right to yet again attack us for doing what we think is right. i don't mind getting criticism but i don't mind getting criticism but i do get death threats. 0ne came in

yesterday. she knows this. earlier at prime minister's questions she condemned the atmosphere of violence that seems to be creeping into some people's discourse, and yet ultimately she used extremely aggressive language. and as i say, she isjust wrong. do you mind me asking what time your latest effort came in yesterday? —— latest death threat. i am trying to remember.m may have come in before the events of yesterday. it may have been yesterday morning. i only have to look at the emails that come in overnight to notice some of the town andi overnight to notice some of the town and i don't do social media, as i say. my colleagues do do social media and they get levels of abuse

that are quite astonishing. do you think it is over exaggerated and disproportionate, this reaction from what dominic grieve has just said, from what wes streeting tweeted last night? i think the prime minister used a very strong language because she realises that if brexit is not delivered and appears to be then stolen from the majority of people who voted for it in 2016, then i think she realises that politics will go to a place where none of us can predict. he will get voted for and the atmosphere in which that politics takes place. —— none of us can predict who will get voted for. the issue is accidental. we have a contract with the british people to deliver this and all of us, labour and conservative candidates, were elected on manifestos to deliver it and now it is down to a binary choice about how it is delivered and it is then the agreement she has negotiated that she has put forward, and that delivers on the people's about. i think the language was extremely aggressive and

irresponsible to divide the nation possibly even more than it is at the moment by making that speech. we know that our democracy is quite fragile at the moment. it feels broken. theresa may last night potentially made that situation a lot worse. wes streeting is saying that if anything happens to an mp than she will have to take responsibility. i am not sure i would take that view that far but it was inflammatory. we are in a very dangerous moment now. rather than acting as a prime minister and trying to pull the nation together and pull parliament together, and to reach a consensus and pull parliament together, and to reach a consensus with government, she has done the opposite. and she has put more red lines in place. there is another red line which is i will not go beyond the 30th ofjune. she is right. it is the difference between statesmanship and brinkmanship. actually there is a compelling argument, just to reset the dial here, to revoke and say,

right, let's take a deep breath and try and work it through. the challenge we all face is that the definition of brexit wasn't made in advance of the referendum. the public did vote, a majority, for brexit, but it wasn't defined. the last three years has been a tortuous process of trying to come to an agreement on that. if we fail an agreement on that. if we fail an agreement on that. if we fail an agreement on that, i would argue, andi agreement on that, i would argue, and i am in favour of go back to the public, that is likely to be different to what was promised in 2016, so therefore it has got to be morally right to go back to the public to confirm that is what they wa nt public to confirm that is what they want but we have got to agree on what brexit is first and i don't think we are close and we need more time. obviously we try to get a government minister to join the conversation today and nobody was available. prison email said: the prime minister was right to say what she did. we voted to leave and mps

are trying to stop it. we should just leave. what do you say that, dominic grieve? i understand that a majority voted in 2016 but i think the point has already been made that we are talking about something completely different now. the deal available doesn't match anybody's expectations or hopes, very few people's. i certainly don't wish to deny that a choice that was made in 2016 but that is precisely why i ta ke 2016 but that is precisely why i take the view that we should go back and ask the electorate if they want to leave on the thames that the prime minister had secured. they are likely to be the only terms available and they should also be given the alternative of remaining. ina given the alternative of remaining. in a democracy, people are entitled to change their mind. that is precisely why democracies work well. if you start denying that possibility, which is what we have been getting, then you do start to build up an almost tyrannical force, and that is precisely the problem we have been seeing in parliament with people being browbeaten into doing

something which they believe is not in the national interest. there is a way out of this. if the public were to vote to leave on the prime and at a's terms, we could do that within days and parliament could put in place all the necessary steps for that to happen. it must be the best way forward. jim fitzpatrick is shaking his head in disagreement.” have been as anybody of the prime minister and the way she has handled the negotiations over the last two yea rs the negotiations over the last two years that this is the eu's deal as much as it is the british government's. it was a 52—48 vote and on the basis that this deal doesn't satisfy the erg, the staunch remain as you want to reverse the procedure either, i think it is where we should be added to is a framework document and it is giving the opportunity to negotiate the customs union and the trade deal and the security. it sounds like you have made up your mind to vote for it. the inflammation period which is what labour asked for at the start is when the real negotiations will ta ke is when the real negotiations will take place. for anyone tuning in right now this is a labour mp

defending theresa may's deal. it did sound like you would vote for it this time. i have said this morning that i will probably vote for it next week. i said i would vote for it the last couple of times and didn't for a number of reasons. there are implications that will be very difficult for me. if the deal does come back next week and if she loses, then is this what happens? the eu say it will be a longer extension and you and parliament have a vote on whether you agree to that long extension?” have a vote on whether you agree to that long extension? i think if the eu offers a longer extension, it will be with a purpose, and this is where the concept of the conservatory referendum comes into play. -- conservatory referendum comes into play. — — confirmation conservatory referendum comes into play. —— confirmation referendum. i have said all along that we should have said all along that we should have a confirmation referendum. what iam asking have a confirmation referendum. what i am asking is whether you would all vote for a longer extension. yes, of course i would. you word! it is the sensible thing to do. this process

was meant to be about the agreement at the future relationship, and having a great future relationship, we would have a transition period to prepare for the transition date at the end of 2020 when were change arrangements. all we have got now is the prospect of the further joy of yet more negotiation with the european union about the future relationship, under the cosh of the terms of an international treaty. who in their right mind wants two more yea rs who in their right mind wants two more years of this joy? the foreign secretary this morning were com pletely secretary this morning were completely right about the economic price that gets paid by brexit paralysis. decisions are not being taken because paralysis. decisions are not being ta ken because people paralysis. decisions are not being taken because people don't know. so for goodness' sake let parliament on the referendum by making a binary choice between her deal and no—deal. i will be going for no—deal because i think it is infinitely preferable to yet more grief. then let's get on with it. i am going to bring in jennifer. is she ready? she is

watching you this morning. jenny, can you hear me? hello. how do you react to what mrs may said last night? i am so angry. she doesn't speakfor night? i am so angry. she doesn't speak for me at all. she thinks she has got the public behind her and she has not at all. i am a remainer, a labour party member, and i was so angry this morning. what a mess. she should have had a cross—party delegate right at the beginning. she has gone down her own path and she is not listening to anyone. she is not listening to her own party. she is not listening to the public. what do you think will happen, jenny? oh, i haven't got a crystal ball in front of me. every day is just so different. nobody can predict what is going to happen. i would like a

public vote now. it is just too important for the public not to be involved now. she can't sort it out. thank you, jenny. we will talk to more of you. dominic grieve, you said yesterday that you have never felt more ashamed to be a member of the conservative party at the moment. why don't you leave? because iama moment. why don't you leave? because i am a conservative and i have been a member of the party for over a0 yea rs. a member of the party for over a0 years. i have no desire to leave. i wa nt to years. i have no desire to leave. i want to try to get my party back on the right track and i am willing to work with all members and colleagues to try and achieve that. i realise we are facing a period of great difficulty. my shame was watching a prime minister say things at the dispatch box at prime minister's questions which were very un—conservative indeed. and it seems to me not something that a prime minister who understands and works within the parameters of the uk

constitution should be saying. you said you have known herfor many yea rs said you have known herfor many years and you had a personal friendship beyond and outside of the house. is that over now?” friendship beyond and outside of the house. is that over now? i have no reason to know one way or the other. i shouldn't exaggerate that but we have known each other since university and we have kept up and seen university and we have kept up and seen each other on various occasions throughout most of our adult lives. has she ever shown humility during those years? she is an extremely pleasa nt those years? she is an extremely pleasant person and she has always had friendly relations with me. what you did yesterday at the dispatch box came as a considerable and shocking surprise to me. -- what she did. what if there is a situation of no—deal? crispin blunt would be co mforta ble. no—deal? crispin blunt would be comfortable. what would you do to stop that? it gets quite difficult next week because of time and

ultimately the prime minister holds a lot of the cards here in the decision—making process and what she brings to the house. i am convinced andl brings to the house. i am convinced and i am going to eat my words that she doesn't want to deliver no—deal. this is why i go back to the three options that she has got this weekend. i think you are going to see a vote on tuesday and then some soul—searching and decisions on wednesday and thursday. meaning what in practical terms? wednesday and thursday. meaning what in practicalterms? i think she has got to decide to bring the statutory instrument to parliament, taking the date out of it so we don't leave on friday. i think if she placed that, it would pass. and how do you think the public would react? look, this is difficult. i recognise the parliament is split, just like the public, and in that way parliament represents the public. if they are going to be like this over article

50, what on earth will they be like when it comes to cutting a trade deal? no, what is going to happen is we will run the clock down again with the transition period and we will end with the transition period and we willend up taking with the transition period and we will end up taking the deal they give us. which is why we ought to leave next friday. i don't know what is so difficult about this? if we leave on friday we are free of the terms of the withdrawal agreement. sean, from merseyside, he is listening to you. leave next friday with no deal. crispin blunt says i don't see what is a difficult about that. what do you think? the people in the pinstripes and the power suits in parliament at the moment need to swap it for a penny and go down to the nearest hospital or the nearest coffee shop and help the people really working in this country. i am a retired gp and the first thing i was taught was first to do no harm. 0ur first thing i was taught was first to do no harm. our country is being

brought to harm by the reckless irresponsibility of a tory government that five years ago decided it was dying and as it died it was going to take down the rest of the country. honestly. what do you want to happen?” of the country. honestly. what do you want to happen? i think we should revoke article 50 and in four months' time we should have a general election. that is right and philip is right, there are three choices available to there are three choices available to the parliament and the country. can i finish? we either go for a new deal and accept that, or we revoke article 50, or we take theresa may's deal to the people. i said that as an affirmation of democracy and i would rather put the decision in the hands of the people and revoked. this e—mail says... please do not

say that we did not know what we voted for. how arrogant of mps to suggest 17 plus million people were ignorant. let us leave immediately with or without a deal. i support mrs may who is being bullied. sean? 17.a million voted to leave. 13 million did not. let's not pretend there was this widespread vote for leave, it was not true. a third of our country were disenfranchised. a lot of them were eu citizens, a lot of them were 16 and are now 18 and a lot of them lived abroad and in europe. this pretend that everyone voted leave, please, you need to put a counterpoint, bbc, 30 million did not vote to leave. hello, stuart, good morning, where are you? first,

what do you think of what mrs may said last night? it is disgraceful. basically it is the politicians trying to blame people for a decision the public made. ultimately the people will not accept the basic politicians allowing this to be overturned. what do you think the public will do if that ends up happening? there is massive political unrest from people within the public and we will not accept this. we will organise things. direct action? yes, direct action. it is being planned? it is on facebook now. we will not listen to politicians, these people looking after their own interest and overruling the public. we are not racist, we are not everything people are being told. my partner is polish. this is damaging businesses

in the country and it is giving us a bad reputation globally. either with or without a deal we have got to go next friday? we voted for no deal, that leaflet to every household in the country was given, to leave the single market, to leave the customs union, to leave, that is what we voted for, victoria. how do you react to that? on the ballot paper it was leave with no deal, but the campaign was leave and have your ca ke campaign was leave and have your cake and eat it. that is the problem. it is the disconnect what was promised to the population was not what the ballot paper stipulated. the reality is we were promised lots of money from the nhs, control of borders, the whole thing isa control of borders, the whole thing is a mess. when you are in this situation it is important and inherent to the parliament act and behave responsibly and is respected by everybody. i fear that unless we

either take it back to the public straightaway, or we pause and take time out, this can only get worse andl time out, this can only get worse and i don't want to see that for my country. do you think labour will call a vote of no confidence in this government soon? we already tried that and lost, but it is open to the opposition to put those motions down on the back of events. i would be surprised if it was not in the playbook, whether they will do it can it, is entirely an open question. that is a matter for jeremy corbyn and the shadow cabinet to make that tactical decision. next week, as we are saying, it is very different. no deal is still on the table, there will be a binary choice as the first option next week. if the deal is rejected, we are in a complete quandary and nobody knows what is going to happen. having spoken to the business community and retail and my constituents, to the

northern ireland business community, businesses are saying take the deal, her deal is better than no deal and we cannot go on with this uncertainty. it is harming business and the economy. we cannot afford another two—year delay.” and the economy. we cannot afford another two-year delay. i will not deny that that is what business is saying, but i think as well business would not necessarily be opposed to having the deal put to the people with remain on the ballot paper. that also provides certainty. i am addressing stuart's points and i appreciate what stuart is coming from, but i fail to see how parliament would be in breach of a democratic principle if it were to put a decision to the people themselves. the people took the initial decision and they deserve the right to make the final decision. parliament will be serving the interests of our democracy by so doing. it is important we observe that. i have also been disappointed

in theresa may. i have always fundamentally believed in the end she would do the right thing and listen to parliament and reach a consensus across the house. what she did last night totally destroyed any confidence i had left with her. did last night totally destroyed any confidence i had left with henm really destroyed it. she has a contract with the people and she believes and knows that 85% of mps in this parliament were elected on a ma nifesto to in this parliament were elected on a manifesto to deliver the brexit decision of the people in 2016. every time you look at the stages of this, whether it is the election in 2015, then the vote in parliament for the referendum in 2016, and we clearly said that decision would be honoured, and then to 2017 vote to give notice to the european union, a massive majority in parliament to do that, then the election in 2017 to enact all of that, the prime minister has been consistent to honour the decision. parliament collectively is reneging on it. it

is the views of dominic and philip who think it is a disaster for us to leave the european union who are trying to rerun the referendum. dominic grieve? i cannot suspend and get rid of my ownjudgment. my own judgment is no—deal brexit would be catastrophic and i would do everything i can to prevent it. it was never suggested during the 2016 referendum we were going to leave with no deal. 0n the contrary, those promoting leave assured the public there would be no difficulty getting a satisfactory agreement so they would not even notice a difference in any negative terms between being in or out of the eu and that is simply not the case. as for the deal, the deal is flawed and crisp and thinks the deal is flawed as well. when they are faced with that problem we have to think of alternatives and the obvious alternatives and the obvious alternative is to go back to the public and asked them if they want the prime minister's deal because it is the only deal on offer. till,

hello, where are you? i am in melton mowbray. what do you think of what theresa may said? i feel sorry for her, she did not call the referendum, david cameron called the referendum. seems like politicians are grouping together or looking out for themselves, but not reflecting on what the public want to do. when a country votes more or less 50—50, how on earth be resolved? they should have been a percentage barrier, say 70% of the country voting to leave, and the politicians would group together and they would be able to put what was acceptable to the country. this is dreadful, it isa to the country. this is dreadful, it is a shame stop people like myself,

we do not know where we stand, it is absolutely dreadful. we need to conclude. i will give each of you a final say on what you think is going to happen, not what you hope will happen. is deal going to next week? i think happen. is deal going to next week? ithinka happen. is deal going to next week? i think a deal will not pass next week and i think she will hold her nerve and work to deliver brexit next friday. leave with no deal? leave with no deal. can she survive that? her position as leader of the conservative party is a until december. you do not think there will be remainer asthma in the cabinet saying, you have got to go? there will be and there will be about 30 of my colleagues who will be deeply upset about the fact we have left the european union and not been able to unpick this. it represents the 10% of the conservative party membership or are

into position. the vast majority of my party want this done and will be happy for us to next friday.” my party want this done and will be happy for us to next friday. i think adil cannot pass, it was not passed even before her statement last night. i hang on to the belief that the prime minister will not want to be the author of no deal.” the prime minister will not want to be the author of no deal. i am sceptical, but every mp next week will vote with their conscience for what they think is in the best interest of the country and there will be criticism for that on both sides, but it will be done sincerely and genuinely and in that instance parliament will be doing itsjob which we are paid to do, which is to make decisions. i think the deal will fail, i do not think it will go through. i think if theresa may does try to press ahead with no deal, then parliament will once again vote against that. at that point parliament will have to arrange a series of indicative votes. a

selection of those where you would find out what parliament was five. dominic grieve? i do not think adil will go through next week and i do not think we will be leaving at the end of next week. there will be a crisis if the deal does not go through, but i think we will come through, but i think we will come through it and we will still be in the eu at the end, albeit with an extension. thank you all for coming onto the programme and for talking in sucha onto the programme and for talking in such a moderate terms with each other. we like each other! you could have filled some of us. we have so many messages from you which i will try and read before the end of the programme. the home office has been accused of having a "shockingly cavalier" attitude towards the detention of people in immigration removal centres. in a moment we'll talk to the snp's stuart mcdonald, who is one of the mps behind that report. but first, we've spoken exclusively to two men who were detained and forced to leave this country

within a 2a hour period. they were only allowed to return after their cases were taken to court by the charity, medicaljustice. it led to a high courtjudge ruling that the forced removal of migrants should be suspended. we can t use the men's real names because of a court order, and their words are spoken for them. mr a came to the uk from nigeria to study for a masters degree in 2012 when he was in his 20s. but he never finished his degree. he started to hear voices. he was sectioned after he tried to take his own life. treatment helped him to feel better and he had a daughter. but in late 2017 he was asked to meet immigration officers. he wasn't worried because he thought his paperwork was all in order. but within six hours he was on a flight back to nigeria. mr a told us he had no idea. immigration officers were going

to make him leave the country. so when i got there the first thing they said was its going to be a bad day for you. you are going to go to the detention centre. i was like, how come i'm not going to go there cos i am still under medication. i am on that treatment about loss of friends who have been to the detention centres and i don't want to go there no matter what. he took my phone. i couldn't call my mom. i couldn't call my lawyer. i couldn't talk to anybody. so after that they took me to the detention centre. we got there maybe half ten so we were outside from 11 to maybe six in the morning so they took me down to heathrow. it was like being on death row i haven't got no medication i haven't got no food or nothing. i haven't got no money on me. so they put me on the plane. how stressful was that? it was really really crazy. i never said nothing because i knew

what they were doing was wrong. i kept praying for god whatever was going to happen. just be there for me even on the plane. they were asking a lot of questions. hope you don't have to come back here. we'll look after your daughter. i didn't want to say anything so that's how we got to africa. i wonder if you could just describe the the sort of decline, the deterioration of your mental health. before i went to africa i was feeling like i was getting a bit more better, when i'm really really stressed. the voices always comes they're really loud. the psychosis? yeah comes back yeah. and what effect was it having on you? i really really find it so difficult to be happy. i really find it so difficult. life is really really hard. so many things i used to do back in the day from play football to draw into everything. i've stopped that because i've got so much going on in my head right now. i've got my leave to remain on to 2021 but i don't know what is going to happen after that. maybe you go back to africa. i've got so much

going on in my head. sso it's still yeah stressful. even though you know you've got some time here yeah. yeah i don't know what is going to happen after that. so it is something that i think about all the time. what happened in mr a's case? he would have been given a remove a window notice which i think at the time he didn't really understand and experience as a lot of people don't really understand them when they're given them that removal window notice means there's a short notice period and after that he can be removed at any point with no further notice. so with no warning he could be loaded onto a van driven to the airport and flown to africa which is what happened? hhere he didn't know what was going to happen he didn't have it sounds like it didn't have his medication with him. he was not in a fit state to go to africa.

he was not able to contact his lawyer get a lawyer get legal advice and bring the arguments which he needed to bring which meant he was he was unlawfully removed and he had to be brought back. but that should have never happened. like mr b mr a2 came to the uk to study he's from gambia. he got his degree in business studies in 2013. he got married and his wife was about to give birth. when immigration officers detained him. mr a2 says he wasn't able to speak to a lawyer before he was deported. they took me to my flat where i lived with my wife. they told me to pack up my belongings. then they took me to a detention centre. they told me they had applied for me the following day. i ask them why and they said it is because you don't have the right to be here. i said my wife is heavily pregnant, eight months at the time. they said there is no evidence for that and there is no application right now. they had been in the place that i'd seen my wife there. she was crying at them asking them to not detain me. they should have relieved me

but they said no i had to go back and that's how they detained me. did you have access to a lawyer? i had to arrange a meeting with a lawyer but i was detained before it could happen. how long were you detained for? about two months. your wife gave birth to yourfirst child. when this was happening. yes. when i was at the detention center. and how did that affect you. it affected me greatly because i miss that whole process. my wife was alone and suffering a lot. you were flown back to gambia. yeah. what happened there? after some time i was able to get help from charity. they were able to bring me back. they're helping me to apply to get my residents buy meat through the home lobbies which i how do you think about what happened it was really hard.

a of broken and disappointed at the time. it was very hard on me and my wife very hard very tough. similar scenario. it shouldn't have happened. absolutely it should have never happened. we don't know how many more people there are that this has happened to. but as a result of the order on thursday the home office have told us that they had to cancel 69 removals in just two days. so if there is about 69 removals happening every day we can only imagine how many more people there are like them. how do you respond to the fact that the forced removals that have just been described to us of migrants have been suspended by the high court. the government cannot do this until there's a judicial review. it's fantastic news. there will be hundreds and hundreds of people who because of that are now safe from being suddenly picked up with no warning being driven to the airport and being removed. well, we're joined now by the snp's stuart mcdonald who sits on the home affairs select committee, that's the group of mps who produced the report accusing the home office of "serious failings". how do you respond to these stories?

very brutal and inhumane, just the latest in a long line of practices that do not consider people's circumstances. what are the main criticisms from your committee? we are detaining far too many people forfar are detaining far too many people for far too are detaining far too many people forfar too long are detaining far too many people for far too long and we are detaining people who should never be detained, whether that is because there are no grounds, because people are vulnerable and will be negatively impacted bait detention. they may be torture survivors, they may have pre—existing mental health conditions which means it is totally inappropriate for them. the home 0ffice say regarding those cases they are disappointed by the high court hearing and they say they do not detain people indefinitely and they only use detention when necessary. you'll all the evidence we saw does not back up. they say that and it is in their guidance, but people who are detained do not

know how long they are detained for and that by definition is indefinite detention. they are doing it as a matter of routine as well. the snp's stuart mcdonald who sits on the home affa i rs stuart mcdonald who sits on the home affairs select committee. on tuesday, this programme heard from 12 mums whose sons had been killed after being stabbed. since then we have heard from many of you, some who have had the similar devastating experiences while others who are parents saying they re scared their child is vulnerable. either vulnerable to being attacked or likely to start carrying a knife themselves, feeling that they need it "for protection". so who should step in if a child is carrying a weapon? what would you as a parent do? who would you turn to? who would you turn to? the police? teachers? social workers? here with us is nicola ? we're not using her surname and she's

worried her teenage son is in danger of getting into a gang lifestyle. she doesn't want to use her full name, or that of her son, in order to protect him. gemma fox runs the social enterprise save our boys and girls which provides opportunities for young people. and councillorjas athwal, london councils executive member for crime and public protection. thank you all for coming on. why do you say, nicola, that your son is vulnerable? yeah, my son is 16. from the age of 11 to 15 he was in and out of schools. he had 15 school placements in the space of three and a half years. he is vulnerable in the sense i believe he has needs that are not diagnosed. i have had a five year battle to have him assessed and he is very unsettled. the situation with schools has made

him unsettled. he has had no consistency in his education, he has gone from being top of the class to know being a child who behaved very badly in school. he does not listen. does he carry a knife? not currently, i do check his bag every day. he has been stopped and searched on many occasions and has never had a knife on him. the school are quite good, they search the children on the way in and have a metal detector. they take everything away from them, their phones and keys and everything as they go into school. i do not believe he has one. 0ne school. i do not believe he has one. one of the reasons you i worried is sex of your friends have sons who have been killed in fatal stabbing is. five stabbings and one was shot.

that must be devastating. it is. do you worry your son could end up dead or do you worry he could end up killing someone? i am not so worried about him killing someone, i am worried about the company that he keeps, being in pupil referral unit he does mix with children who are known gang members. he could be seen on the street with them. not that he is involved in a game, but he only has to be seen with them to become a target. you want help and you do not know where to turn? i have asked the schools for help, i have been to organisations in my local borough. the larger organisations that have the funding do not work with the children that need to help. they work with children on the right path. there are a lot of grassroots organisations not getting the funding and they are doing the real work but not getting the funding.

gemma, what should nicola do? who should she turn to? speaking to everyone she can, with the skills, services and organisations. everyone she can, with the skills, services and organisationsm everyone she can, with the skills, services and organisations. it is not helping. it is a complex problem and there is no one solution. we say to parents keep talking, keep banging on the door, it is your son, they are precious to you. sorry... keep talking to your son as well? you have to keep talking to your son, other parents, the school, you have to fight for your son. people in organisations like ours, the councils and authorities, any services, they need to listen. we are the people on the ground and we need to be heard. but listening is not enough. in the end you do not

wa nt not enough. in the end you do not want your son to be attracted into a gang or end up carrying a knife. what do you do as a parent? what would you say? certainly we need to look at the determinations that the councils are putting in. there are some incredibly determined staff. doing what? they are working incredibly hard to ensure that parents like nicola are heard. sorry... even if they hear a parrot like nicola they then have to do something. what is it? that is why i am expressing frustration. the councils and all the other services which are organisations, the way gemma's organisation works... what do you do? give me some practical things. we are a grassroots

organisation and we get referrals any which way, so it can be from parents. we sit down and we talk to them. what is going on? what is your home life like? is as simple as that? no, but it is a start. you need to build a picture about what is going on, all those assessments. for the people we have worked with we put into a motivational programme to help them identify their own strength. now we are getting somewhere. have to build up confidence and make better choices. if things have gone on in the past, leave it and grow from it. who they are hanging around, then we do activities like creative stuff, like music, media, they might want to get back into education. we insist on that journey. does it work? burma

yes, it works, we have worked with many children. we have not asked for any money. it does not work for everyone, because everyone is different. would it work for your son? i believe my son's failures have come from the education system. he is now a few weeks away from doing his gcses and his behaviour as he runs out of lessons. he is not taking part in his lessons and he is failing in that sense. what happens to him from dan? he is limited for a couege to him from dan? he is limited for a college education and what happens when he goes out into employment? that is one of the things for us. definitely by myself, education has beena definitely by myself, education has been a big factor in creating low self esteem. not everyone learns the

same way. we know there are no intelligences and in school there are two. it is not one size all approach. it is also about listening. certainly making sure that the parents come together and they do not have things done to them, they have things that they work with the councils, with the authorities. we could talk for much longer, but thank you, all of you. we really appreciate it. thank you for your company today. have a good day. we have got a little bit of sunshine breaking through the cloud at the moment, in wales, the midlands and the north—west of england. it is these areas where you will see the best of the sunshine in the

mid—teens. unlike yesterday there will be more cloud around. it will be largely dry but with rain affecting the west of scotland. maximum temperatures are typically 13-15. maximum temperatures are typically 13—15. where you get that sunshine, it could go up to 16 or 17. a bit of rain overnight affecting the north—west of scotland. drizzle around the coast and hills of wales and western areas of england. another mild night. during friday it will be a dry day, but rain in northern ireland and scotland. sunny spells later in the day. staying clay before england and wales and temperatures between 13—15.

you're watching bbc news with me annita mcveigh at westminster. theresa may heads to brussels to ask eu leaders to approve a three—month delay to brexit, after blaming mps for the brexit deadlock. motion after motion and amendment after amendment has been tabled without parliament ever deciding what it wants. all mps have been willing to say is what they do not want. mps across the house of commons reacted furiously to mrs may's remarks last night, with many defending their opposition to her brexit deal. we have a representative parliamentary democracy. and members of parliament cannot simply be asked to forfeit their judgment. and theirjudgment has been, actually, pretty clear that her deal is flawed.