will be aware of the result of the conclusions in relation to extensions and i continue to today at five, the prime minister admits she still has no majority for her brexit agreement, in the house of commons. after chairing cabinet, mrs may told mps that approving her deal, was still the best way to avoid a no—deal brexit. it is with great regret that i have had to conclude that as things stand there is still not sufficient support in the house to bring back the dealfor a third meaningful vote. labour says it will support moves this evening, to allow mps to take control of the brexit process, from the government. parliament must send a clear message in the coming days. mr speaker, i hope where the government has failed this house can and will succeed. also today, the european commission warns it's increasingly likely, the uk will leave the eu

without a deal, on april the 12th. this is the scene live in the commons, where mps are due to consider taking control of the parliamentary timetable, to explore other brexit options. it's five o'clock. we're live at westminster, where the brexit crisis has, if anything, intensified. the prime minister is still trying to find a way, to break the deadlock, and bring her brexit agreement back to the house of commons, for a third time. but she's acknowledged this afternoon that there's no majority support for it among mps, as things stand. mrs may's parliamentary partners, the dup of northern ireland, said today their opposition to the deal was unchanged.

the cabinet met this morning, ahead of a series of votes by mps this evening, when they try to gain control of the parliamentary process, and explore new brexit options. this is what the prime minister had to say a short while ago. beyond what mrs may has proposed. this is what the prime minister had to say a short while ago. mr speaker, i continue to believe that the right path forward is for the united kingdom to leave the eu as soon as possible with the deal, now on the 22nd of may. but it is with great regret that i have had to conclude that as things stand there is still not sufficient to support in the house to bring back the deal for a third meaningful vote. i continue to have discussions with colleagues across the house to build support so that we can bring the vote forward this week and guarantee brexit. if we cannot the government made a commitment that we would work across the house to find a majority on a way forward. the amendment in the name of my right honourable friend, the member for west dorset,

seeks to provide for this process by taking control of the order paper. i continue to believe doing so would be an unwelcome precedent to set. hear hear! which would overturn, which would overturn the balance of our democratic institutions. so the government will oppose this amendment this evening but in order to fulfil our commitments to this house, would seek to provide government time in order for this process to proceed. it would be for this house to put forward options for consideration and to determine the procedure by which they wish to do so. but i must confess that i am sceptical about such a process of indicative votes. when we have tried this kind of thing in the past it has produced contradictory outcomes or at no outcome at all. there is a further risk when it comes to brexit, as the uk is only one half of the equation and the votes could lead to an outcome

that is negotiable with the eu. ———unnegotiable. no government could give, no government could get a blank cheque to commit to an outcome without knowing what it is. so i cannot commit the government to delivering the outcome of any votes held by this house but i do commit, i do commit to engaging constructively with this process. there are many... there are many different views on the way forward, there are many different views on the way forward but i want to explain the options as i understand them. the default outcome continues to be to leave with no deal but this house has previously expressed its opposition to that path and may very well do so again this week. the alternative is to pursue a different form of brexit or a second referendum. hear hear! but the bottom line remains, if the house does not approve the withdrawal agreement this week and is not prepared to countenance leaving without a deal we would have

to seek a longer extension. this would entail the uk having to hold european elections and it would mean that we would not have been able to guarantee brexit. these are now choices the house will have its opportunity to express its view on. the prime minister speaking on the house a short while ago, lots of commentary and analysis on that statement because where the prime minister said no deal would happen u nless minister said no deal would happen unless parliament approves it, that has led to comment about whether she is firmly, really ruling out that no deal option. we can talk about that a little later. jeremy corbyn responded to the statement and said from his point of view they will be backing the move tonight to try and gain control of the parliamentary timetable and to explore other brexit options. this is how the labour leader jeremy corbyn responded. the government has no plan.

for them, it's all about putting the conservative party before the country. given that the prime minister admitted that she does not have the numbers for her deal, will she accept today that her deal is dead and that the house should not have its time wasted giving the same answer for a third time? but the prime minister has succeeded in unifying two sides against her deal. the cbi and the tuc‘s unprecedented joint statement last week demanded a plan b which protectsjobs, workers, industry and communities. has the prime minister got a plan b? the government has failed and let the people down, whether they voted leave or whether they voted remain. the country cannot continue to afford a tory crisis. it's time, mr speaker, for parliament to take control, and that's why, later today, we will be backing the amendment in the name of the right honourable member for west dorset. you made it clear last week, mr speaker, that

for the prime minister to bring a deal back, there must be significant changes. there are none. rather than trying to engineer a way to bring back the same twice—rejected deal, will be prime minister instead allow, rather than fight, plans for indicative votes? she cannot both accept her deal does not have the numbers and stand in the way of finding an alternative that may have the numbers. it is ridiculous to suggest that parliament taking control is overturning democratic institutions. it's not, mr speaker, it's parliament doing its democraticjob of holding government to account. so, mr speaker, willshe agree to abide by the outcome of these indicative votes if they take place on wednesday? jeremy corbyn, the labour leader

speaking a short while ago responding to the statement by the prime minister. quite a few members of parliament were critical of the statement she made in downing street last week when she was seen to be blaming mps and parliament for the dead lock in brexit. she was asked to reflect on it and apologised several times but the prime minister was saying, i was just trying to express the frustration felt by many people but she did come under attack for that, including by ian blackford, the leader of the scottish national party. he called for the prime minister to rule out a no—deal brexit. mr speaker, i want to ask the prime minister, now, with all sincerity, will she respect the will of parliament and reject no deal? you know, when the prime minister is telling us that our votes don't count, at the same time, privy councillors are being given briefings by her government,

and those briefings are talking about the catastrophe and the real risks that there are to the united kingdom, and it's the prime minister that is threatening the people of the united kingdom with a no deal, and a no deal that this parliament has already rejected. mr speaker, what is the point of all of us sitting in this chamber and voting on debates and the prime minister thinks she can ignore parliamentary sovereignty? what a disgrace, what an insult to this place. because if our votes don't count, then, frankly, we may as welljust go home. that was part of the contribution by ian blackford at westminster. just to explain, we're going to move on ina to explain, we're going to move on in a while to parliament to mps voting on a range of things that will see them try to get control of the parliamentary timetable from the government. the prime minister herself has said she does not think this is a desirable outcome because she said it will be against the

tradition and the president within the house of commons itself but the prime minister is still on her feet in the commons. at the end of her own statement before the move on to the next part of the parliamentary timetable where there will be a government motion which will be subject to some edge amendments, possibly by other members of the parliament and labour backing one to get control of the timetable itself. our chief political correspondent, vicki young is in central lobby in the houses of parliament. what did you make of the prime minister's statement and the fact she said no deal would happen unless parliament approves it? she said that pointed at the house of commons has made it very clear it does not approve of leaving the eu without a deal. i have to say afterwards downing street would say she was not taking no deal of the that is still the default position in law come april the 12th. she was merely pointing out parliament has made its views known and they would do everything they could to stop that

happening so a slight confusion they arei happening so a slight confusion they are i think. also on the issue of the so—called meaningful vote, that third attempt the prime minister was hoping to bring back to the house for another go to get her deal through, making it very clear she certainly does not have the support to do that. tomorrow she did reiterate she was still working towards trying to do it at some point may be best week. if you listen to the reaction from the dup mps it is pretty clear they do not sound like they are shifting or changing their opinion and then, downing street are also having to contend with the attempt tonight which is the mps trying to seize control so that on wednesday they could hold a series of votes for all the different options on brexit. prime minister said you could do that but you cannot commit to abiding by those because she is not convinced the system would work. we are ina convinced the system would work. we

are in a position where plan b is still care plan a which to get the deal in but there is no sign she could do that and have to sit and watch while mps these control of the whole thing. what is your hunch? which way is this going to go and you think those people, including oliver wet n —— my olivet light when, where they get that resting a entry time they want? downing street think they will, they are talking about it in terms of that is going to happen tonight. nick bowles has been tweeting and he is not convinced it will happen. a similar move was lost byjust convinced it will happen. a similar move was lost by just two votes last time around. he thinks it is going to require resignations or ministers at least, voting for it which the government will not want. it could be another night where there is some very difficult decisions for those ministers who do not want no deal to

approve of mps taking charge of the process. they might have to decide whether to give theirjob up to guarantee it goes through. the other thing downing street are raising they see that having listened to olivet light when doing interviews, this is just the olivet light when doing interviews, this isjust the beginning. it is non—binding boats were parliament can givea non—binding boats were parliament can give a sense of what they might be in favour of but what downing street fear is that the next stage is likely to have the numbers to do it, is to go a step further and bring in binding legislation which is incredibly difficult. we are in a position where can a group of backbench mps meet prime minister do something she does not want to do? equally can a prime minister voice parliament to do something to do not approve of? this is why we are in a impasse. a quick final point, the

prime minister's on position. you referenced her position there, lots of talk over the weekend about a challenge and the fact that in some people's view she only had days left in downing street, but today it seems the temperature has changed a little? the mutterings about her leadership have been going on for a long time and it is difficult to find a tory mp who thinks she has any long—term future as leader, as prime minister. but they have to calculate what they get in her place. if you are on the remaining side in the conservative party, you probably do not want to get rid of her now because you will end up with brexiteers which is not what they want. the problem is she has lost a certain amount of authority and yet at the moment she is still the only option. she is sitting there trying to push something through people do not agree with. the intriguing thing is whether a large number of conservative mps who think her withdrawal agreement is bad for the country, they could not vote for it,

could the switch and vote for it if she was to could the switch and vote for it if she was to announce could the switch and vote for it if she was to announce her departure? i think she will not do that because she is not sure it would make a difference. thank you, we will keep an eye on these events as they unfold. so another addition to the brexit phraseology you are going to hear a lot of this week is, indicative votes. so what are they? indicative votes are where mps vote on a range of options designed to test the sentiment of mps, to see what, if anything, might command a majority. mps are able to express their support or disapproval for each individual motion, meaning that they could choose to support more than one of them. it is an intriguing landscape to be let's get the thoughts now of professor meg russell who is

director of the constitution unit at university college, london. very pleased to be here. this concept of a range of indicative votes, prime minister, very clear in the house saying you can vote for whatever you like but i am not in the position where i can act on any of them. how should people be regarding this process?” of them. how should people be regarding this process? i think there are two levels, one level in which what she says is true in as much if mps are voting for a certain version of brexit, she cannot deliver that on her own. that is subject to the eu partners. we are talking about opening up the political declaration, not the withdrawal agreement, to move towards a potential softer brexit. at the same time there are things she can promise on her own as prime minister, for example, if mps demand a referendum it is in her power to deliver. there is a degree where it

could be a bit disingenuous to say if parliament want something, the government will not act on that amount because in the end, the government is the servant of parliament in this country. that is the way it works. if parliament asks for something a government does not deliver it parliament cannot sack government and that is a pretty extreme action. the weight beat mood is at the moment i would not rule that out happening if parliament and government cannot come together to agree a you. let excess to the heart of another part of her statement where she says the amendment motion to do with wresting control of the parliamentary timetable, she said, i do not like this because this could set a precedent that could be u nfortu nate for set a precedent that could be unfortunate for her and future te na nts unfortunate for her and future tenants in downing street. it goes right to the height of the tension between parliament and government. we have had indicative votes before, the famous occasion was in 2003 and it happened again in 2007 will stop

this is another thing where the government and commons were divided and held three votes without a whip where mps can vote whichever bait they wanted. in 2003, it was a mess and it voted against everything. they are afraid of that now. this process happens to happen carefully to make sure the options are set out clearly a nd to make sure the options are set out clearly and mps can express their views and reach a resolution. i think i lost the first part of your question. it was a bit of a blow, the shelter. the part of mrs may not wanting the wresting of the parliamentary timetable. there is a way of dealing with that and she hinted at that in the statement, it is not clear but maybe we will hear more from david lidington, that she could avoid mps wresting control by making government time available. the government has hinted they might do that but they have not offered it. it looks like they might be

defeated on this motion tonight if they do not do something because it was rejected by only two votes last time. the way to avoid defeat is to come forward to a promise —— but with a promise to make this time available. is there a question about what is on this agenda? at the moment mps do not trust this government. the government puts forward an amendment that is manipulative they will get in trouble as well. we look at the time to were looking at this week, the prime minister admits she still does not have the votes she needs for the meaningful vote on her own deal which has been hammered twice in the house of commons. do you suspect she whelped —— she will try and bring that back? i am mystified by this is seen as a separate. that back? i am mystified by this is seen as a separate. on one level,

there is a process set out in legislation that requires her to get approval of her deal in a vote. but if there are indicative votes on a range of options her deal should be one of the options. in a centre deal isa one of the options. in a centre deal is a compromise. she has tried to move towards the brexit wing in her party as far as she can whilst protecting peace in northern ireland, it is a compromise deal, so i think when opposite to the indicative votes? see if nbn is faced with all the options that is where mps end up and let endorse it afterwards. thank you so much. our thanks to her for sharing afterwards. thank you so much. our thanks to herfor sharing her expertise. the european commission has warned there's an increasing likelihood that the uk will leave the eu without a deal on april the 12th. let's get more on this from our europe correspondent gavin lee. tell us more about this and in what

context was this made? essentially this was an updated statement of the back of 15 months of planning from the european commission to give advice to european governments, businesses and to eu citizens and uk citizens in the eu, about what to do if there is a no—deal brexit. the heading today was the eu sees it as an increased likelihood that by the 12th of april there will be no deal between the eu and the uk, and when you think about the diplomatic language the eu uses given it has to rattle around the capitals of 27 countries, this gives a sense of clarity. first of all to where the eu believes this could be heading. it is not saying most likely but increased likelihood. it also emphasises what president macron is saying, the french president, where he says there is probably about 5% of trees that may‘s deal going

through so it was a short statement —— prime minister's deal going through. we looked at what would happen if tourists went on holiday and can travel without a visit for up and can travel without a visit for up to 90 days but in each case, they would have to get passports stamped for the first time so they could work out eu customs officials, how much time they spent in europe. they would no longer be able to stay in eu lines in airport terminals, there would be special cues with customs questions, where have you been, where are you going to, can you support yourself. and all sorts of things from pet passports, vaccinations and roaming charges that have ended would restart in the case of a no—deal brexit so a thorough guide for a no—deal brexit. what kind of focus their on this week's events in parliament where in the next two or three days we could

have a series of very significant milestones in terms of these votes? i think the policy is one eu diplomat say, listen carefully to what is happening in london and we will respond as appropriate. they do say they will not give a rundown of all potential options voted on in parliament. there are ones that would be easier to get an extension on as the eu sees it, the one closer toa on as the eu sees it, the one closer to a labour idea of a shared customs union or 808 model that the eu in the uk even more. —— norway model. there are some messages querying where this goes next and i think the next is one phrase a dutch diplomat sent to me today. this new language lexicon we have heard, prime minister singh in the comments it would be her brexit, no brexit or a slow brexit. i had a text saying if it would be a slow break that we

have had so far is hardly a concorde brexit as it has taken a while yet. when the eu believes something significant moves the brexit dynamic on. thanks very much. what i would like to do is to take a quick peep inside the house of commons because i think we are coming to the end of the prime minister's own statement, still fielding questions from mps on both sides of the house. the prime minister still on the front bench and a full government front bench for this ministerial statement. we seejeremy for this ministerial statement. we see jeremy corbyn for this ministerial statement. we seejeremy corbyn still there. why don't we listen for a couple of minutes to the end of this sequence before we go on to the next part. can be prime minister explain the mechanism what you meaningful vote becomes a meaningless vote? can i suggest that ignoring indicative

votes or motions is one thing but when she ignores it meaningful vote it shows a level of bad faith. can i say to the honourable gentleman that the house was very clear after the first meaningful thought that it wa nted first meaningful thought that it wanted to see change and one thing it has positively voted for was an agreement to leave with a deal and some changes to the withdrawal agreement. we did negotiate changes to the withdrawal agreement, legally binding changes, the house did not accept those changes that were initiated. we continue to look and i continue to talk to colleagues because i believe it is betterfor this country to leave the european union with a good deal. thank you mr speaker, the prime minister has often said she considers the withdrawal agreement to be in the national interest so if she concluded the only way she could get support in this house for her deal

would be to offer her resignation, which in the national interest do that? can i say to the honourable gentleman i think this is about making sure that we leave the european union and do it in a way thatis european union and do it in a way that is best for this country, and that is best for this country, and thatis that is best for this country, and that is what the deal is about. patricia gibson. people are very concerned and very alarmed by this exit chaos, in north ayrshire and arran and in the uk as a whole. this isa time arran and in the uk as a whole. this is a time of crisis and the people of scotla nd is a time of crisis and the people of scotland and across the uk are represented in these brexit talks by a prime minister and a government which eu leaders at the weekend described as evasive and confused in the final days before brexit. does she think that description by eu leaders inspires confidence in those across the uk who are worried about brexit? what i hope people across

the uk who are worried about brexit will see is a government who is trying to ensure we deliver on the vote of the british people but do so ina way vote of the british people but do so in a way that protects theirjobs, union and security. callum brown. mr speaker, yet again the prime minister displays a lack of self—awareness and a complete irony bypass. in her statement she says if you cannot get her vote throughout your work across the house to find a solution but then she tells us she won't let parliament to control. she dismisses alternatives except she is keeping no deal on the table. the truth is she has no strategy when she triggered article 50, she negotiated a bad deal and that wheels have come off, her idea seeking consensus is threatening parliament. when will she recognise her own failures and do the right thing and what? can i say to the honourable gentleman that we have

indeed engaged with others across the house. i have engaged with his right honourable friend, the leader of the scottish national party and with the leaders of other parties. there are different views across this house. i do not agree with revoking article 50, i think we should deliver on the brexit vote. that is a difference of opinion between us but i have reached out to see if there is an opportunity to find a way to ensure that we can see is able to leave the european union with the deal that it delivers and delivers four people, to protect their jobs, security and delivers four people, to protect theirjobs, security and to protect our union. studio: the prime minister at the tail end of this statement in the house of commons before we move onto the next segment. the deputy prime minister known as david lidington will be moving a government motion when you see some attempts to amend the government motion and try to prepare the way for mps to have

their own indicative votes a little later this week. it is a significant moment coming up. where are we today after the prime minister's statement, how do you read things? we are in a position where i suspect this evening at the house of commons backbenchers and opposition are going to take charge of the order paper on wednesday. i think it is going to be close but on balance i suspect that will happen. and what that will do is give them the opportunity to bring forward motion is to try and indicate what the house of commons preferred outcome would be. this is not going to be easy to do. speaking at the former leader of the house of commons, this is in a sense unprecedented. there was a process the government led previously to try and establish how the commons wanted the lords to be reformed and they ended up with nothing having a

majority. i think how they do it, they have not said, i think they have to have effectively a series of preferences. so you start with everybody‘s preferred outcomes, eliminate those with the lisa point and move on. where do you end up? i think you end up with a customs union plan. so there is a plan for a customs union plan, the labour party's proposal. others favour the european economic area. the irony is, in both cases, it's still the same withdrawal agreement, because the eu are not going to negotiate a different one. the question is, what does the future relationship look like? then the question starts to go back to brussels and says, if we're prepared to sign up to a customs union, which would be my own preferred outcome, are you prepared

to say that, on that basis, we wouldn't need to enter the backstop? now, who knows. now, because theresa may set her face against any customs union as such, that hasn't been attempted in that negotiation may not succeed. and she said if they house does vote in certain directions, she may not be able to follow—up or an act on any of it.|j thought it was shame she said that if the house of commons indicates what of the greater number of mps would support, that she would at least be prepared to go and try and negotiate that with brussels. they did that before when they passed the brady amendment that said we wanted an alternative arrangement to the backstop. she said, ok, iwill try and negotiate that. and she didn't get it. if the house of commons

effectively ta kes get it. if the house of commons effectively takes away one of her red lines, if you are willing to go and negotiate for it? she may say she is not willing to, but at that point, there is a breach between the house of commons and the government which theresa may would not be able to mend. and other elements which is drawn a lot of attention today, when the prime minister said a no—deal brexit is not going to happen unless parliament approves it. a lot of people saw that as a much firmer statement by the prime minister about the impossibility, if you like, of going towards a no deal. did you see that as a strengthening or not? it continues to be difficult to work out how you take no deal off the table. because, remember, we're still in a position where, struck with speaking, article 50 expires on the 12th of april, and she made that clear today in the statement. with that being the case, unless the government brings forward some mechanism, some legal mechanism, we

will leave the european union on the 12th of april. that means an act of parliament. what worries me is there are, in the conservative party, at the heart of this, our viewers i think i have increasingly come to this conclusion, it isn't because we have a hung parliament, it isn't because people can't decide, it's actually because the conservative government and conservative party are splits. i'm sorry that's the case. if the conservatives were all voting the same way in pursuit of the same solution, it would actually pass the house of commons, we could be sure of that. they say, you need the dup, actually, if all the conservatives voted in the same way, they could for something through, and they haven't been able to do that, because i have been occasions, such as the 14th of march, when it two thirds of the conservative party voted in a way contrary to theresa may and the governments. that is at

the heart of this problem. ifear we have in the conservative party now a minority, however strong a minority, who would even force a general election, because actually their view is, if this parliament won't give us what we want, which is to leave without something like the backstop in place, then we ought to have a general election to make it happen. on that theme, one can imagine the response, when the prime minister went for three options, my deal, no brexit, ora minister went for three options, my deal, no brexit, or a longer extension, those are the three options, there are people on this benchers who would be furious? and they're sitting there saying there is another option of a general election. i don't know what happens ifjeremy corbyn moves a vote of no confidence. he may conclude he shouldn't do that because of exactly this risk, that conservatives, some would vote for it in order to precipitate a general election,

because they think if, it's the one hand a conservative party with a new leadership and a brexit manifesto against a labour party led byjeremy corbyn with an unclear, potentially we have to have another referendum to try and escape from all this, i think that's a difficult place for those of us, and i am one, who voted remain in the last referendum and would rather see the consequences of brexit substantially mitigated rather than a go for the hard brexit that people are pushing for in some parts of my party. finally, just to help viewers again, because the process is long and complex, following it is a challenge, what's your hunch, as someone very experience here, about where we might be at the end of this week do you think the premise will bring her deal back for a third time if she is allowed to do so, and you think will end up in a position where mps will

succeed in some way of resting some kind of control? i think, and it's not what i would like us to be, i think she will not have brought the meaningful vote back for her deal. i think the so—called indicative votes will have indicated that, while a soft brexit as it were, a customs union oran soft brexit as it were, a customs union or an eea plan has the greater number of votes, nothing has a majority, so nothing is capable of being pushed through into legislation. there will be a move against theresa may, she can't be ousted as party leader. but she may get to the point where her government isn't cohesive behind her, and at that point, they will be pushing for an election. thank you very much. our thanks to him for joining us on a sunny evening on couege joining us on a sunny evening on college green. while all the brexit terminal goes on in, and of course, lord la nsley

terminal goes on in, and of course, lord lansley mentioning the dup, and i'm delighted to say sonny wilson joins us now from the central lobby. thanks forjoining us. when you spokein thanks forjoining us. when you spoke in the commons earlier, when nigel dodds spoke as well, you did not sound like parliamentarians who we re not sound like parliamentarians who were in any way ready to back the prime minister's course at this stage. is that the correct rating? yes, because the prime minister has not made any changes to the water all agreements, which, of course, not made any changes to the water allagreements, which, of course, is the source of our discontent. and the source of our discontent. and the source of discontent notjust for us, of course, but a substantial section of her own party. it's particularly significant that, in a day when the irish government have been making it quite clear that in the event of a no deal, they have no plans that they will not be putting in any infrastructure along the border between northern ireland and the irish republic, and yet they withdrawal agreement is predicated

on the view that that was unavoidable. so now we know that the withdrawal agreement and the premise of the withdrawal agreement was totally false. the eu's bluff has been called on this, and why would the prime minister ever expect us to give support to an agreement which is based on a lie? and a lie which would damage northern islands, damage the united kingdom as a whole and is designed anyway to overthrow the result of the referendum. —— damage northern ireland, damage the uk. when you discuss this with the prime minister and others in government, what is the response you've had? even today, in the face of the evidence, the reality that the irish government are saying that they will not be putting up any infrastructure along the border and it seems that that was a result of pressure put on by the german chancellor under michelle barnier, who in turn has conveyed that to the irish governments. even in the face

of that reality, the prime minister is arguing there might have to be infrastructure. it's the irish government who are saying this, not us. government who are saying this, not us. when you simply close your eyes to the reality, you really can't expect people to say, well, you're ignoring the reality that is falling behind you anyway, even as it damages our country. i can tell you, there's no way we are going to accept that northern ireland has to go intoa accept that northern ireland has to go into a situation where we treat the rest of the united kingdom, to use the words of the attorney general, is a third country. especially when it is now clearly evident that there is no need for such arrangements to be put in place. what's your view on the idea that mps should be getting some control of this parliamentary timetable in order to express their own if you on other brexit options?

if anyone thinks mps taking control and i'm against that, the government is elected to run the country — anyone who thinks mps taking control is going to lead to an outcome which is going to lead to an outcome which is workable, they only need to sit on the benches which i set on and see the difference is that there are between those who are opposed to the government and how they can't even get on with each other, let alone find a common cause which they could all rally behind. you would finish we re all rally behind. you would finish were just as many variations on the kind of deal which you would go to europe with. who would actually go and negotiate that? i can't imagine and negotiate that? i can't imagine a ragbag of a opposition party is going and doing thejob, and why would the government go and try to negotiate a deal which wouldn't even commands the commands of the whole

house? don't think this is a easy option of mps taking over, mps taking over will simply be as chaotic as what we have at present. mr wilson, thank you very much. let'sjoin mr wilson, thank you very much. let's join the house of commons, the speaker is on his feet to talk about the emotions before the house. at we now come to the motion on section 13 of the european withdrawal act 2018. i inform the house that i have provisionally selected amendments d, thatis provisionally selected amendments d, that is to say in the name of the leader of the opposition, a, in the name of the right honourable gentleman the member for west dorset, and f, in the name of dame margaret beckett. i remind the house that under the terms of the motion, the debate may continue until 10pm,

and may remaining amendments be moved. i called for the cabinet office and a chancellor of the duchy of lancaster, lancaster, mr david lidington. i beg to move the motion on the order paper standing in the name of my right honourable friend the prime minister. mr speaker, this debate follows as a result of requirements of the eu withdrawal actand, as requirements of the eu withdrawal act and, as a consequence of the decision taken by this house on the 12th of march. since that date, the house has spoken on two further occasions. first on the 13th of march, the house expresses opposition to leaving the amount without a deal. and on the 14th of march, the house agreed that the government should seek an extension to article 50. and i might add, mr speaker, that in respect of both

those votes in this house, neither was legally binding on the government, but in each case, the government, but in each case, the government has honoured the wishes of the house in response to the resolution. i hope that might provide at least a modicum of reassurance that, in that this government, we have not and do not intend to be dismissive in the least of how this house decides or votes to backer i'm grateful to the prime minister likes for giving way. he rightly just minister likes for giving way. he rightlyjust said minister likes for giving way. he rightly just said that minister likes for giving way. he rightlyjust said that on the 13th of march, this house agreed to not leaving the european union without a deal. in the prime minister's statement that she has just given to this house, she said, unless this house agrees to it, no deal will not happen. critics point to this house what she meant by that statement?

what the prime minister said, i thought, was quite clear, that the government believes, indicates that we frequently brought to this house for the deal, that we believe is in the interests of the united kingdom thatis the interests of the united kingdom that is something that is both those who supported leave and those who voted remain should be able to rally behind and move forward. we know that the legal default position must remain no deal, because, from now on, any decision about this is contingent not only upon the view that this house might take or the government might take, but on decisions by the european council as to whether or not they wish. .. decisions by the european council as to whether or not they wish... other collea g u es to whether or not they wish... other colleagues will forgive me, i do wa nt to colleagues will forgive me, i do want to reply to one intervention before i move on to others. it was

by no means a given that an extension would have been granted at last week's's european council. if i give way here first. i thank him, my honourable friend makes an important point as we embark unknown important debate today, i wish to raise the concern i have about the prime minister's speech last wednesday night. she has apologised and made maybe not as clear an apology as we would have liked, but some recognition that perhaps her words we re recognition that perhaps her words were not appropriate. but i was particular concern to see that the clips from her speech were being pumped out across facebook were targeted advertising, paid for by taxpayers money and the cabinet office. would he agree with me at this time it is not appropriate to

be racing the heat in this debate when what we need is an atmosphere of compromise and concern and of respect for all the different views across this house? i don't think there is anyone in the house that would disagree with the honourable gentleman's comments at the end of his intervention, certainly not my right honourable friend the prime minister. i think all of us are deeply aware, and looking up at the memorial shield to our former colleague, jo cox, i am very sharply reminded of the fact that many members of this house have been subjected to the most appalling threats, intimidation and online trolling. and i think everyone of us in our individual or our representative capacities has a responsibility to ensure that no encouragement or soccer is responsibility to ensure that no encouragement or soccer is given to

those wicked people who seek to act, intimidate in that way. i give way. studio: david lidington, in effect, the deputy prime minister, there will be an attempt to amend this motion to try to give mps some more control over the parliamentary timetable later this week. one of the amendments mentioned chosen for debate is by the conservative mp sir oliver letwin. his amendments, let's ta ke oliver letwin. his amendments, let's take a look at that. it focuses on what happens in the house of commons this coming wednesday. it calls for parliament to be able to take control of business in the house of commons, away from the government, who normally decide what is debated and voted on, and the amendments would allow mps to put all business motions relating to brexit, most likely indicative votes, which we

talked about earlier, a series of votes on different options, to try and find a parliamentary majority. and to talk about this,. our reality check correspondent chris morris is here. remind us what the various options are that we are going to be hearing about throughout the week? are that we are going to be hearing there are that we are going to be hearing are some numi house there are some numbers to throw the house of commons to approve their deal. and that political declaration what the future relationship looks like. but she's admitted this afternoon she still doesn't have the numbers in the house of commons to pass her deal. still don't know whether they'll be a third meaningfulfight later whether they'll be a third meaningful fight later this week, there still could be, but that leaves us with the default position still, in law, that if we get to april to 12, we would leave if nothing else were to be done, with nothing else were to be done, with no deal. the prime minister told the house this afternoon, unless this house this afternoon, unless this house agrees to it, no deal will not happen. but we were both in brussels

last week and we know they house of commons on its own, is david lidington just explained, cannot ta ke lidington just explained, cannot take no deal off the table. to extend the article 50 period, you need the agreement of the other 27 as well. what happens of the current deal is rejected again, and the prime minister was my gritty mentions her difficulties with that, and they no deal which are also referred to today and she said u nless referred to today and she said unless parliament decides otherwise no deal is not off the table, what does that open up granta that possibly opens up on wednesday night ofa possibly opens up on wednesday night of a softer brexit, and these are essentially different versions of staying much more closely economically to the eu then perhaps the prime minister's deal suggest. one of the other options is labour's brexit option, which means staying ina brexit option, which means staying in a customs union with very close relations to the single market. there is another version going round, being discussed with the labour leadership by a cross—party

coalition of mps, they're calling it common market 2.0, which flips things on its head, which means staying in the single market with a close customs arrangements, which would walk like a customs union and talk like a customs union, should but not to be called that. this crosses in some ways, some of theresa may's red lines. being in a customs union means you can't have com plete customs union means you can't have complete independence in your own trade deals around the world. staying in a single market means freedom of movement of people remains in place. that he put it like common market 2.0 say that there could be certain circumstances in emergency brake on freedom of movement, but it would be pretty limited. we are still talking about a vast number of people, millions of people, who have invested a lot in what they thought the outcome would be. what do we make of the kind of dynamics of the political situation

we're in in that respect? another situation we may have a vote on this week as we have an estimated 1 million people outside this building on saturday for holding another referendum, which would presumably pose the question, do you still want to leave with perhaps the prime minister's deal or remain? if you like the harder version of that, there is to revoke article 50, meaning we would stay in the eu on the same terms we have now. we know there is petition on the parliament's website which now has the number of signatures risen above 5.5 million. leave her say, fine, but three years ago there were 17.4 million people voting leave. but 5.5 million people voting leave. but 5.5 million people voting leave. but 5.5 million people and not that long a length of time, just a few days, is a pretty strong indication that the country's divided, they house of commons is divided, but the time has

come now, i think, for mps to make some choices. w want to see if they do. thank you, chris. let's cross to the house of commons, where mps are debating the next steps in the brexit process. david lidington is speaking for the government. lidington: the government. lidington: the government has taken seriously the comments of the member for amesbury and we have a dialogue to find the best way forward. i give way. on the question of the government's commitment to avoid no deal, my right honourable friend has said that the government does accept last week's votes, which i think is in line with constitutional convention that the government does not proceed with concerts rejected by the house

of commons. here said, therefore, it means were either pass the withdrawal agreement but if we do not, the other remedy is to go and ask for an extension which he rightly says we can't guarantee that europeans would accept. but in lines with the wishes of this house in what is now the policy of the government, if we're driven by the more hardline people and this house to that circumstance, then the government must revoke with the hope that we start the whole process again once everyone has come to their senses with some sense of how we do wish to proceed on the question with a relations with the rest of the world? studio: the question there by kenneth clarke and david lidington still taking questions, this session will last for a few hours yet, we imagine. we are nowjoined by the

deputy political area of the telegraph, although he is moving on to the times. and anne mcelvoy, senior editor at the economist. where are we today, they fight the prime minister set out three options which seem to be my deal, no brexit at all, or a long delay that set a lot of hair is running, what did you make of it? that was very interesting, given she said that a long delay would be unacceptable, jean would be the last time we would get out of the eu. but obviously, events a re get out of the eu. but obviously, events are eating away at some of those. something else i noticed and i think it is open to interpretation is, she talked about no deal, saying it would only be passed if the comments said yes to it, which we know is no possibility, given the mood on no deal is over they are. i mean, over the heads of the over

there! that meant a lot of people said, theresa may, in order to save yourself, might motor in no deal position. she's ruled it out, but i now think they come back to her and she says she will get this deal through. what is your reading on those three options in the no deal factor? in cabinet, i know there is a lot of frustration this afternoon. a third of the cabinet spoke out openly against the prime minister. she opened the meeting with a statement saying she was clear that no deal wasn't an option, it wasn't viable and would damage the union. response lights, a litany of cabinet minister said no deal is better than no brexit, that was the message again and again. once again, it spells trouble. the other thing that strikes me is that it is a blow to prime minister authority. people left cabinet assuming there was going to be a meaningful votes, that was the signal she made. within an

hour of that cabinet meeting, that hope was gone, it was dead. we are in the process where parliament is taking control. what does that mean the? the viewer is watching, what does that mean in practical terms are out what is your guide on that? it leads to a series of votes on thursday if the left—wing amendment... wednesday, isn't it? thirsty, you're right. those series of votes or no lot of softer brexit options. but they were discussing a lot of dire scenarios. the brexit secretary made the case this could lead to a general election, because parliament would have become inherently ungovernable. it could come up with its own brexit proposals, potentially force its own legislation through, and a premise to's authority and the conservative's authority would be hugely rooted in the process. people

say, why don't we go that route earlier? at the government is there to do what the public decides, what is the source of this tension? what do you see this leading?” is the source of this tension? what do you see this leading? i can see the arguments, that tends to be naked by people who'd like to see parliament take the upper hand, but ijust parliament parliament take the upper hand, but i just parliament forced parliament take the upper hand, but ijust parliament forced the prime minister to take what it said, how to it force theresa may to take this back to european council? it has no mechanism to do show. you might shame her into it, but that won't work. parliament can say, we take control of the business of parliament, but parliamentarians sometimes think that's the end of the story, and it isn't, as long as she doesn't accept what they say is mandate to her, the position doesn't change very much. that may be her

way of toughing it out. remember, for all today's chaos, it does seem she wants to stay. all that flurry we got over the weekend, might there be an interim prime minister?, that evaporated pretty quick. on that note, thank you both forjoining us. ata time, note, thank you both forjoining us. at a time, but we could have chatter for another half an hour, easily. a quick update on the weather, but to remind you of the six o'clock is coming up. clear skies for a good pa rt coming up. clear skies for a good part of england and wales, and the satellite picture tells the story today's weather quite nicely. scotla nd today's weather quite nicely. scotland and northern ireland have had more in the way of clouds, that is something in a way of a theme for the weather this week. overnight tonight, the cloud across western areas stopping it getting really cold, so temperatures around five celsius overnight. but with clearer skies in england and wales, temperatures dipping away, and

patches of frost developing in the countryside. if in norwich, temperatures around freezing by the end of the night. a chilly start for some of us on tuesday, but sunny in england and wales. so more cloud in the west, the sickest of which bringing outbreaks of rain it to the highlands and islands. away from the far north west of scotland, a dry day for most of us, spells of sunshine coming and going. temperatures are expected to reach about 14 degrees. this dry weather is expected to continue for the next few days, more of that to come. on wednesday, a lot of dry weather. on thursday, as temperatures a little, around 17 celsius in the warmest areas. a lot of dry weather to come for the rest of this week. that's the latest weather.

no new vote on the prime minister's brexit deal for now — as she tells parliament there's still not enough support for it. but theresa may tells mps she believes her deal is the only way forward — and discussions will continue to get enough support to win a third vote. it is with great regret that i have to conclude that as things stand there is still not sufficient support in the house to bring back the deal for a third meaningful vote, mr speaker, the government's approach to brexit has now become a national embarrassment. tonight mps will now decide whether to take matters into their own hands — by holding a series of votes on possible ways forward. also tonight... protests about the teaching of lgbt rights at some primary schools in birmingham, but the woman who runs this one says she won't be resigning. in school they need to be educated about the law of the land