hello, you're watching afternoon live. i'm simon mccoy at westminster. clear it is driving brexiteers to back her deal, to avoid what they today at two. fear is parliament pursuing a slower, softer brexit. that is why mps prepare to vote for the kind of brexit they would like to see — there is a prospect now of mrs may but the prime minister insists her bringing back a deal either tomorrow plan is still the best way forward. or friday to pre—empt parliament on monday reaching a final decision on the sort of brexit deal they want. other options would lead to so, lash yourself to the main price, uncertainty, delay and risk. the it's going to be a massive 48 hours. prime minister is failing to deliver brexit because she cannot build thank you. consensus, cannot compromise brexit because she cannot build consensus, cannot compromise and cannot reunite the country. time for a look at the weather here's stav da naos. the prime minister is failing to deliver brexit thank you. good afternoon. rather because she can't build a consensus, is unable to compromise and unable to re—unite the country theresa may meets her mps later — grey skies, a bit disappointing in after hinting she'll try for a third time to get deal through parliament this week. places. the sun is trying to come putting the brakes on speeding ? plans are revealed through in places. still looking beautiful with the daffodils out. very sunny, particularly in the southwest this morning. we are starting to see some of that sunshine nibbling away at the cloud gci’oss

sunshine nibbling away at the cloud across parts of wales, into the west midlands. the skies are brightening up. a bit of sunshine across the north—east of scotland but generally cloudy skies for most and a weather front bringing thicker cloud for the north—west of scotland with outbreaks of rain. lighter winds further south, closer to the area of high pressure which is anchored to the south—west of england. top temperatures in the sunny spots, mid to high teens. generally the low teens for many. this evening and overnight, it's going to be dry for most of us away from the far north—west of scotland, again with lengthy clear skies and light winds, turning chilly again. a bit of mist and fog with one or two spots seeing frost. there is the area of high pressure, variable amounts of cloud underneath it. we should start to see more sunshine on thursday. notice tighter isobars under weather front across north—west scotland.

remaining breezy with more cloud, elsewhere more sunshine around so temperatures can respond with highs potentially 15 degrees. friday is a similar story, high pressure in control but starting to see a weather front moving down from the north—west bringing more persistent rain. temperatures are starting to fall away and breezy. for england and wales, lots of sunshine with top temperatures 18 in eastern areas. signs of something called a meeting into the north—west of the country. this band of cloud is a cold front, sinking southwards on friday night. it opens the floodgates to colder airfrom the arctic. it opens the floodgates to colder air from the arctic. feeling cooler through the weekend, probably the last of the milder days on saturday and then temperatures falling away into single figures into next week.

some sunshine but also the chance of one 01’ some sunshine but also the chance of one or two showers. the debate on the indicative votes will get under way later today, voting taking place later this evening. you can follow it on the bbc news channel. that's all from the bbc news at one, so it's goodbye from me we are going to start with the news that broke in the last hour or so. gordon taylor — the man who's run the professional footballers association for almost 40 years — is to stand down from the players union. our sports correspondent david ornstein is here. a significant figure in the game for decades,

but a controversial one in recent years? yes, he became chief executive in 1981, he is 74 years old. a controversial figure 1981, he is 74 years old. a controversialfigure in more recent yea rs. controversialfigure in more recent years. a controversialfigure in more recent yea rs. a lot controversialfigure in more recent years. a lot of scrutiny especially in the last year, when people started to take note. you can see him in the middle. people started to ta ke him in the middle. people started to take note of his salary, £2.2 million, far higher than many of the amounts donated to things like dementia and retirement funds and things like that. reportedly a petition was signed by 300 people saying he should resign. it seems they will get their wish because at they will get their wish because at the agm today, it seems he will tell members he wants to leave. but he wa nts to members he wants to leave. but he wants to oversee the process of appointing a replacement. some people might not be happy with that. the pfa chairman went on a collision course with gordon taylor last year when it said an independent review was needed into the organisation. gordon taylor agreed to set it up,

but it is still being set up with no resolution, so i think many people will be pleased that this 38 year reign coming to an end. the question of how to deal with racist fans remains front and centre of the football agenda today. montenegro have been charged by uefa after some england players were abused in their euro 2020 qualifier on monday night. lots of discussion today about what punishment would stop the abuse — talk of stadium bans, tournament bans, players walking off the pitch too. does snooker have a problem with sexism? rebecca kenna is ranked third in women's world snooker, but she's had to give up on her local league because some clubs have a men—only policy. the governing body says it's disappointing and unacceptable. bbc radio five live's chris warburton‘s been to meet her. i went to meet rebecca in yorkshire. she is so passionate about snicker and has played the game from when

she was seven years of age. her dad used to take her to a local liberal club. she could barely see over the table, but she got really good. and she became the captain of the club, she became the world number three, what an amazing achievement, and she that is when she ran into problems. i was just told i will not be able to play in that fixture, i would have to stay home. what reasons did they give you? we are not going to letting our wives, so we will not let you in. how does that make you feel? 0utrage, to be told he cannot play the sport you love because of your gender is ridiculous. it is difficult remembering it. humiliating? she took a stance and said she will not play in the league. the world number three not able to play in her local league, which is a

ridiculous situation. she went to the man said can we play these games ina the man said can we play these games in a neutral venue? it went to the agm, they had a vote, it is a male board, they voted it down. people said to me, can't the league say that unless people let women play in these clubs, can you not kick them out? they said, the league is not a big enterprise and if we get rid of these clubs then it will be detrimental to the future of the league. we are going to the commons, 0liver letwi n we are going to the commons, 0liver letwin talking. on monday he will be taking over the order paper. that will then possibly lead a legislative programme and bill to implement what comes out as the most likely thing to succeed. could he give the house an estimate of how many days he is going to have ——

ta keover many days he is going to have —— takeover so the government can have a guide as to when they might get some of their business done?” a guide as to when they might get some of their business done? i have to say that his remark was an amusement, and that i don't discern amusement, and that i don't discern a vast pile of other government business of importance being tra nsa cted business of importance being transacted in the house. the government is rightly focused, as we are, on brexit, and we are the date, as he knows, and he would have a different view if on the 12th we left without a deal. and i respect that view. it is not my view, i do not believe it is the majority view of the house of commons, as expressed in volts. those of us

wanting to... we want to prevent leaving without a deal. there is an easy route to prevent this, which is for him and his like—minded collea g u es for him and his like—minded colleagues whose positions i understand to compromise as many of us understand to compromise as many of us have. i am sorry, i have not mentioned any more days than those mentioned any more days than those mentioned because i did not think it was necessary. in the house of lords, if they were legislation there would have to be a day or days to legislate. i apologise for asking, i'm trying to find out about this process, as i suspect are millions of people. the reason i ask about next week is because the right honourable gentleman has taken the order paper on monday, and if for example be legislate for a customs union on tuesday or wednesday, then

meaningful vote three becomes redundant. are we assuming that the only day for a third meaningful vote only day for a third meaningful vote on the government's withdrawal deal is this thursday or friday, or can he envisage a time next week where there may be still —— space to come back for a day of legislation on wednesday? again, that is a perfectly reasonable set of questions but has a definitive set of a nswers. questions but has a definitive set of answers. this is not any making of answers. this is not any making of any member of government. regarding this week, the timetable has been set by the eu. they have made it clear that the withdrawal agreement has to be agreed by this

house by friday, to move us to make the 22nd, which would be necessary for the government to pass through with a —— the withdrawal act and implementation bill, which is necessary for the government's meaningful vote to be meaningful. without the implementation bill, it is nothing, as we all understand. the thursday, friday schedule this week is set by the eu, not by us. there is nothing any of us can do about it. it is very important for those who do not want to drop out without a deal, to ensure that those who have not agreed, that there is an alternative. could he explain how, if the house voted for the negotiation with europe for a

particular outcome, that the government either thought was not desirable or negotiable, who would do the negotiating, when it is normal that the government should be the recognisable body doing the negotiating? i wish to thank him, he knows as well as i do that he is absolutely right, that only the government of the united kingdom can negotiate with foreign powers. but the truth is also that the government, like the rest of us, is governed by the law, just as much as any private individual, ministers are governed by the law. it is a frequent occurrence that when ministers bring before the house of commons a piece of legislation, that piece of legislation is amended in a way that ministers did not wish, and

yet ministers are compelled to implement the law that the house in the house of lords have passed, as it is written in the law. they are subject tojudicial it is written in the law. they are subject to judicial review and as a matter of fact, we have a prime minister who i have said on many occasions that i do not think her strategy regarding brexit has been entirely suited to the task, but i have never met another human being who is more law—abiding than the prime minister, so i am certain that she will follow the law, notjust to the letter but in the spirit where they are a law which flowed from a majority view in the house of commons. when the government normally has control of the order paper, if the house amended a piece of legislation in a way that the house light, needn't bring the law into effect or the proceedings to make it a law. as one would expect, he is right, but the government often chooses not to do that, it

often chooses not to do that, it often has legislation which allows it to go forward because it has a greater objective. as ministers we have had the experience where ministers implement legislation which is not wholly in accord. the civil service knows how to support them in doing that and that is what would happen under those circumstances. would he not agree that it circumstances. would he not agree thatitis circumstances. would he not agree that it is a very normal opposition that it is a very normal opposition that the house would have to pass a law to effect the government's policy in a way. can he think of any example in his experience, because i cannot, of a government pursuing a policy on such vital national matter knowing that it did not have the support of the house of commons in the way he was going about it, and simply defying a majority that had voted for another approach?m

simply defying a majority that had voted for another approach? is he is not just a voted for another approach? is he is notjust a former voted for another approach? is he is not just a former chancellor and large chancellor and almost everything else and also the father of house, he will have more experience than the rest of the house, and if he cannot think of such a case, i certainly won't be able to. i do not know of such a case simply because of the possibility —— and simply because i knew this would be raised, i tried to find out if there are any cases, andi to find out if there are any cases, and i cannot find one. i think that suggests there is a strong precedent that if the house of commons passes matter of extreme significance to the nation, a resolution in favour ofa the nation, a resolution in favour of a clear view of how to proceed, it would be not unlawful so far as i know, but that is a matter for the

attorney—general to decide on, but constitutionally unusual for the government not to exceed to that resolution and to proceed the way house of commons expected to do so if we reach monday and get to a majority view in favour of a particular proposition, i think the government ought to say that it would carry it forward. i am merely protecting against the possibility that it takes the view that that is not, and that we have methods through legislation of compelling and action which otherwise might not occur. for example he may recall the maastricht treaty which caused difficulty on a cross—party basis across the house. does he think that if the government had been defeated ona if the government had been defeated on a motion of the maastricht treaty, that my right honourable

friend would have been held in co nte m pt of friend would have been held in contempt of the government had proceeded with its declared policy? studio: it is fascinating to hear what is going on, the site of a backbencher taking questions from the house because he is effectively in control, not the front bench, not the prime minister, oliver letwin is deciding the course of events having secured that from the members of the house of commons, and the members will have their say on the series of indicative votes, they have to choose which options they would like to see happen next in the brexit debate. he was making clear that if there were a majority expressed by there were a majority expressed by the house and the government chose not to follow it, he would be seeking to pursue other ways of compelling the government to carry out the role of the house through legislation. let us go to norman

smith, our political editor because we are hearing how the government is responding in terms of how tory mps will be able to vote. they will get a free vote. they would, which is extraordinary in a way, because there are all sorts of amendments time, many of which would seem to float tory party policy and terms of supporting a second referendum or a customs union, there is even an amendment from the labour party putting forward the labour party's brexit possession, —— referendum position, and it seems the government will have a free vote but the cabinet macro will abstain. it seems that they are trying to avoid many resignations are abstentions, if they cannot vote for what they would like, they will follow the

example of the three ministers at the start of the week or resigned over indicative votes. so to forestall that, we have the prospect of the government not issuing any instructions to its mps over what it should do with these amendments. however, would that life was straightforward. it would also seem that the government is also going to try and thwart moves to hold the indicative votes this afternoon by opposing what is known as the business motion, which kind of sets out the timetable for this afternoon's fireworks. what is going on? let's try to clear of this up with ed vaizey, the conservative mp. the government is allowing you a free vote on things which seem clearly at odds with tory party policy. yes, for backbenchers like me it has been a free vote for

the last few months. but steve brian, one of the ministers who resigned said last night on newsnight that he expected north of 15 mp5 newsnight that he expected north of 15 mps resigning, so it looks as if the government have realised... doesn't it tell us two things, that theresa may has lost control of parliament and her party as well? we know she is trying to get withdrawal —— her withdrawal agreement through twice, i have voted for it twice, and if you read the newspapers it looks like things might be going her way. but it is clear that the reason we are having these debates and votes is because the government cannot get its brexit policy through, and in the absence of the government changing its mind and coming up with an alternative,

parliament has to step in. what prospect of parliament reaching an agreement? we know that people like you have been campaigning for another referendum, at odds with those campaigning for some sort of norway customs union proposal. at the end of the day, what chance that all of you will be able to agree on something which may not be your preferred option? clearly the tories are all over the place but there is growing support for some of the amendments, including an amendment for a second eu referendum, in margaret beckett's name, which has the support of the snp, and we now hear that the labour party and whipping for it. we are sure it will be supported by caroline lucas and the lib dems. so we may see that the people's vote really comes to the fold of the argument. interestingly, my amendment to which is a backstop to make sure we get to within two

days of exeter without an agreed deal, that unless the house positively supports no deal, the default position will be that the government must revoke, and it is a clear instruction to do that, has widespread cross—party support and more and more labour mps are saying they will vote for it. what on earth is going on in labour ranks? i'm confused, the shadow international trade secretary barry gardiner this morning said labour would be rolling out backing a move to revoke article 50, would not be supporting an amendment to have confirmatory referendum. where is the labour party? it is worth considering where we are at today. we have seen parliament take back control of the house of commons. if you're suggesting the government is now going to oppose that in another vote today, i find that quite incredible.

labour is open to using the process to put forward alternatives for ideal that is going to see us leave the european union. we have our brexit deal down on the order paper, we are also supporting motions, that would allow a public vote in the circumstances where we want to keep i'io circumstances where we want to keep no deal or a bad brexit deal to prevent those outcomes. but this is an unprecedented situation. we are voting today to allow through a range of different options which will then be voted on on monday, so we have not done this type of voting before but i think it is clear the labour party's position today is a numberof labour party's position today is a number of options. a lot of people will be confused as to what is going on. how do you see this ending?m isa very on. how do you see this ending?m is a very good question. we are trying to find consensus in the house of commons. labour is trying to be open—minded to that, but of

course the issue is really with the prime minister now. she is opposing parliament having it say, then goes out and says parliament cannot make its mind up. so we have to question the role of the government and the chaos. what is going to happen? as he said, it is really important to understand we are where we are because of the conservative government's failure to work together and deliver what the prime minister said she could deliver. we are in unprecedented territory, and when parliament takes over, backbenchers do not have the weight of publicly funded civil servants behind them. but i think what we can do is unite, and i mean across the house including tory rebels, we can unite to have our vote to make clear the default position. barry gardiner went off on a frolic of his own this morning, as the first thing he said was they would not be supporting the

confirmatory referendum. how does this all end? i think she is going to try to get the withdrawal agreement through, i think it will come back, and if it doesn't, i agreement through, i think it will come back, and if it doesn't, lam not sure those indicative votes will be clear, so we will possibly end up with a long extension, which could end up with the nuclear option of revoking article 50, which does not mean brexit is over, but it could end up with a second referendum, which i do not currently support. joanna has a point which is that the government has to grip this issue and show some leadership. one of the reasons i support a lot of these motions is to try to show the hard brexiteers what the alternative really could be, but after that it could be a long extension which is possibly the most likely outcome. thanks very much. crucial meeting of

the 1922. theresa may suggested she will say she will quit if she can get her deal through. but she may carry on if she can get another negotiating team, sources say. now it's time for a look at the weather. disappointingly cloudy across much of the country. across the south—west of england, far south of wales, glorious. iwillshow south—west of england, far south of wales, glorious. i will show you the cloud creeping eastwards. south—west england the best sunshine. cloud thinning across wales into the west midlands, pushing eastwards. sky is

improving across much of england and wales over the next few hours. further north, more cloud, weather front affecting west of rain. temperatures 10—11, pretty mild. 15-16 in temperatures 10—11, pretty mild. 15—16 in the sunshine. under clear skies across the south—west, those temperatures will fall away. cloud both in and break elsewhere overnight. another chilly one with light winds. temperatures dropping close to freezing across the south—west in some spots workwise will be clearest. north, 8—9 in stornoway. high pressure into tomorrow. more weather fronts affecting the far north—west corner of scotland, stronger breeze. a change to the weather, this front. cooler air. friday and thursday look milder. more sunshine away from the

far north—west of scotland, temperatures 15—16 or maybe more. 11 in the north—west despite the cloud and breeze. more persistent rain to north and west of scotland on friday. sunshine around, temperatures up to 17—18, but notice a change taking place across the north—west, back into figures. as the weather front sing south—westwards across the uk, introducing cooler air. feeling very different. mild they in london on saturday, temperatures falling away from sunday onwards. elsewhere, knocking on the door of single figures. mixture of sunshine and some showers wintry over the higher ground in the north. turning much cooler as the weekend progresses.