is on checks of the is en checks of the border. the eu is on checks of the border. such a commitment, which will also be enshrined in legislation will protect thousands of skilled jobs that depend on just—in—time supply chain. we will empower parliament to break the deadlock over future customs arrangements. both the government and opposition agree that we must have as close as possible to frictionless trade that the uk eu border, protecting thejobs frictionless trade that the uk eu border, protecting the jobs and livelihoods that are sustained by oui’ livelihoods that are sustained by our existing trade with the eu. the government has a ready put forward a proposal which delivers the benefits of a customs union but with the ability for the uk to determine exxon trade undergarment policy. the opposition are both sceptical of our ability to negotiate that and an independent trade policies in the national interest. they would prefer a copper hence a customs union with a uk cn eu trade policy but with the eu

negotiating on our behalf. customs union with a uk say in the trade policy but with the eu trading bed negotiating on our behalf. as pa rt bed negotiating on our behalf. as part of cross—party discussions, the government offered an option of a temporary customs union on goods only, including a say on trade policy so the government can decide its preferred direction, but we were not able to reach agreement. instead, we will commit in law to let parliament decide this issue and reflect the outcome of this issue. to address concerns a future government could rollback hard—won protections for employees, we will publish a new workers' rights bill. asi publish a new workers' rights bill. as i have told the house many times, successive british administrations of all colours have granted british workers' rights and protections well above the standards demanded by brussels. but i know people want guarantees, and i am happy to provide them. if passed by parliament, the bill will guarantee that the rights enjoyed by british workers can be no less favourable than those of their counterparts in

the eu now and in the future. we will discuss further amendments with trade unions and business. fifth, the new brexit deal will guarantee there will be no change in the level of environmental protection when we leave the eu, and we will establish a new and independent office of environmental protection able to uphold standards and enforce compliance. six, the bill will... the government will include in the withdrawal agreement bill at introduction requirement to vote on whether to hold a second referendum. i have made my own view clear on this many times. i am against a second referendum. we should be implementing the result of the first referendum, not asking the british people to vote in a second one. what

would it say about democracy is the biggest vote in our history were to be rerun because the house did not like the outcome? what would it do to the democracy and what forces would it unleash? i recognise the sincere strength of feeling across the house on this issue. so, to those mps who want a second referendum to confirm the deal, i say that you need a deal and withdrawal agreement bill to make it happen. let it have its second reading and then make your case to parliament. if this house. a referendum, it would be requiring the government to make provisions for such a referendum, including legislation, if it wanted to ratify the withdrawal agreement. eight, parliament will be guaranteed a greater role in the brexit process. the negotiations over the future relationship of the eu. in line with the proposal put forward by the members for wigan and stoke—on—trent

central, the new brexit deal will set out in law that the house of commons will approve the uk's objectives for the negotiations, and mps will be asked to approve the treaty governing the relationship before the government signs it. nine, the new brexit deal will legally oblige the government to seek the alternative arrangements process by 2020, avoiding any need for the northern ireland backstop to come into force. this is made in the spirit of the amendment tabled by my honourable friend, passed on the 29th of january. it is not possible to use alternative arrangements to replace the backstop in the agreement, we will ensure they are viable alternative. ten, we will accept that if the backstop comes into force, great britain will stay aligned with northern ireland. we will deliver on our commitments in northern ireland in the report. the

northern ireland in the report. the northern ireland in the report. the northern ireland assembly and executive will have to give their consent on a cross executive will have to give their consent on a cross community basis for a new regulation is added to the backstop. we will work with confidence with her supply partners to see how this can be entrenched in law, so northern ireland cannot separated from the united kingdom. following the end of eu election purdah, the bill will be published on friday, so the house has the longest time to publish the detail. if parliament passes the bill before the summer recess, the uk will leave the summer recess, the uk will leave the eu by the end ofjuly. we will be out of the eu political structures, out of ever closer union, we will stop laws being enforced by the european court, and free movement, stop making fast annual payments to the eu budget. by any definition, that is delivering

brexit. by delivering a deal, we can do more, guarantee workers' rights, maintain partnerships that do so much to keep us safe, we will ensure there is no hard border between northern ireland and ireland, and we can bring an end to the months, yea rs of can bring an end to the months, years of increasingly bitter argument and division that have polarised and paralysed politics. we can move on, move forwards and get on with thejobs can move on, move forwards and get on with the jobs we were sent here to do, what we got into politics to do. that is what we can achieve if we support the new deal. reject it, and all we have before us is division and deadlock. we risk leaving with no deal, something the house is clearly against. we risk stopping brexit altogether, something the british people would simply not tolerate. we risk creating further divisions at a time when we need to be acting together in the national interest. and we

guarantee a future in which our politics becomes still more polarised in voters increasingly despair as they see us failing to do what they asked. none of us want to see that happen. the opportunity of brexit is too large and the consequences of failure to grave to risk further delay. in the weeks ahead, there will be opportunities for mps on all sides to have their say, to table amendments, to shape the brexit that they and their constituents want to see. in time, another prime minister will be standing at the dispatch box. but while i am here, i have a duty to be clear with the house, i have a duty to be clear with the house about the fa cts . to be clear with the house about the facts. if we are going to deliver brexit in this parliament, we have to pass and withdrawal agreement bill. and we will not do so without holding votes on the issues that have divided us the most, that

includes faults and customs arrangements and on a second referendum. we can pretend otherwise and carry on arguing and getting nowhere, but in the end ourjob in the house is to take decisions, not to duck them. so, i will put decisions to this house because that is my duty, and because it is the only way that we can deliver brexit. so let's demonstrate what house can achieve, let's come together, on the referendum, deliver what we promised the british people, and build a successful future for the whole country, and i commend the statement to the house. jeremy corbyn. thank you. i thank the prime ministerfor advanced copy of the statement. in fa ct, advanced copy of the statement. in fact, i received it yesterday, when the prime minister made an appeal entitled seeking common ground in parliament. where did she make that? not in parliament, but a small room down the road. it is now clear, the

build new deal the prime minister promised is little more than a repackaged version of her three times rejected deal. the rhetoric may have changed, but the deal has not. i thank the prime ministerfor her letter. it offers no change on a customs union, no change on single market alignment, and no dynamic alignment on environmental protections. this government is too weak, to get this country out of the mess they have created. for over two yea rs mess they have created. for over two years the prime minister bullishly refused to consult the public or parliament, she did not seek a compromise until after she had missed her own deadline to leave. and by the time she finally did, she had lost the authority to deliver. that became evident during the six weeks of cross—party talks that

ended last week. talks that were entered into constructively on both sides to see if a compromise was possible. but while those talks are going on, cabinet mr rafter cabinet minister made statements undermining what their colleagues in the room we re what their colleagues in the room were offering. the foreign secretary, international trade secretary made clear they would not tolerate a deal that included a customs union. while tory leadership contender after tory leadership contender after tory leadership contender took it in turns to make it absolutely clear that any compromise deal would not be honoured. therefore, no matter what the prime minister offers, it is clear no compromise would survive the upcoming tory leadership contest. the multiple leaks reported from the cabinet yesterday show the

prime minister couldn't even get the compromise deal she wanted through her own cabinet. and it is clear that they shrunk offer that emerged satisfied no one. not her own backbenchers, not the dup, and not the official opposition either. no labourmp can the official opposition either. no labour mp can vote on a deal with the promise of a prime minister who only has days left in herjob. and evenif only has days left in herjob. and even if the prime minister could honour her promises, the deal she is putting before us does not represent a genuine compromise. her ten point plan is riddled with contradiction and wishful thinking. firstly, the prime minister pretends she is delivering something new with a temporary customs union. this isn't a compromise. it isjust accepting the reality. under the withdrawal agreement we will already be in a temporary customs union through the

transition period, which can last forup to four transition period, which can last for up to four years. and if not, we will enter the backstop which effectively keeps us in a customs union without any say. secondly, why would this house legislate for a plan which has already been comprehensively rejected by the european union? the government wants to align with the european union on goods to keep frictionless trade while at the same time wants to pursue trade deals which would undermine this process. it is simply not compatible. the technology they need to pursue their checkers plan simply doesn't exist. it has already been ruled by the eu as illegal, impractical and an invitation to fraud. —— chequers. and the

government has failed to provide any economic analysis to show this would make us better off. why would the house support such a chaotic and desperate approach? labour set out a sensible compromise plan over a year ago, including a comprehensive and permanent customs union with the eu that gives us a say, that would allow us to strike trade deals as pa rt allow us to strike trade deals as part of the world's biggest trading bloc, bringing investment while maintaining the highest standards. it is credible and achievable. and the best way to protect industry manufacturing of jobs. something the best way to protect industry manufacturing ofjobs. something the government is woefully indifferent to as the latest crisis in the steel industry shows us today. the government must be prepared to step in and take a public stake to save

thousands of high skilled jobs at british steel. a foundation industry for any major economy. instead, the tory obsession is for striking trade deals with the likes of donald trump. they prioritise further nhs privatisation and deregulation over protecting supply chains and jobs in this country. on workers' rights, we have yet to see the full package the government intends to bring forward. but many in the trade union movement remain very sceptical. as frances o'grady of the trade union congress said yesterday, and i quote, this reheated brexit deal want to protect people's jobs and rights. reheated brexit deal want to protect people'sjobs and rights. on environmental protections it is clear the prime minister is not

offering dynamic alignment. and under her proposals, the united kingdom would fall behind on a number of areas, with only a toothless regulator under the control of the environment secretary in place of binding international commitments to protect our environment. finally, on the issue of a confirmatory vote, i'm sure nobody here will be filled by what the prime minister is offering. will the prime minister is offering. will the prime minister is offering. will the prime minister tell us now if this offer is genuine? will she give her party a free vote on this issue? or will she, as before, as before, whip against a confirmatory referendum? if the government truly believes this is the best deal for the economy and for jobs, this is the best deal for the economy and forjobs, they should not fear putting that to the people.

mr speaker, for too long, for too long our politics has been seen through a prism of leave or remain. this is dividing our society and poisoning our democracy. it means vital issues, vital issues are being neglected, the crisis in our schools and hospitals, the housing crisis and hospitals, the housing crisis and the cruelty of the social security policy and universal credit. our country needs leadership to bring us together. however, this prime minister is not the person to do that. throughout the last three yea rs, do that. throughout the last three years, she has made no attempt to unite the country. she has been focused only keeping her divided party together and it hasn't worked.

and her time, her time party together and it hasn't worked. and hertime, hertime has party together and it hasn't worked. and her time, her time has now run out. she no longer has the authority to offer a compromise and cannot deliver. that is why it is time for a general election to break the brexit deadlock and gave the country a say. thank you... thank you, mr speaker. i think the game was actually given away by the right honourable gentleman when he made it absolutely clear that as far as he is concerned they wait to get this through the house is for everybody else to compromise to his plan and only his plan. in his statement he was very clear that he was not making any proposals to compromise. the government has indeed compromised. we have recognised that the are issues on which the house will need to decide. that is the plain fact. there are different

opinions across this house on the keyissues opinions across this house on the key issues of the future customs arrangement and the second referendum. i have made my position very clear on these. the government has set out its position. but it is for this house to decide and the best vehicle to do this is with him the withdrawal agreement bill. so then this house can finally make its mind up as to what it wants the future customs arrangements to be, and as to whether it thinks they should be a second referendum. he talks about a free votes in a second referendum. in the indicative vote, we did indeed give conservative members a free vote on this issue. the second referendum was rejected across the house. he talks about... he has some inaccurate comments. it would be an independent body which is able to hold the garment to account on the issue of environmental standards. i think he

showed his blinkered view on trade when what he sets out is as far as he seems to be concerned, the only issue, the only people he wants to trade with the european union. what we wa nt trade with the european union. what we want to see is a good trade deal with the eu aren't a good trade deal with the eu aren't a good trade deal with other countries around the world. that is the best way forward for the united kingdom. and he talked about british steel and i have answered in response to questions in pmqs on british steel and what the government is doing. he talks about the labour position of wanting a compliance of customs union and of wanting all that dynamic alignment and that single market. i have to say to the right honourable gentleman that what the labour party wants to achieve in its relationship with the eu would make it even harderfor a british government to take action to protect industries like the steel industry. he himself has always complained about state aid rules but he would be wanting to tie themselves into those state aid rules by what he is proposing for the future. but then,

of course, what we see, he talks about different opinions. he talks about different opinions. he talks about different opinions across this house. of course, the one issue that has never properly been resolved in this house, which the withdrawal agreement bill would force to be resolved, is whether the right honourable gentleman himself is for brexit or against it. if he is for brexit, he will vote for the withdrawal agreement bill. voting against the bill is voting against brexit. mr iain duncan smith. mr speaker, cani mr iain duncan smith. mr speaker, can i say to my right honourable friend that this morning her environment secretary was on the radio and when asked whether that was soui’, radio and when asked whether that was sour, that of its second reading would be brought back to parliament, he didn't answer in the affirmative. he said they would take reflections and they would listen. my question,

therefore, to the prime minister is, having presented this to the dispatch box, is she absolutely certain now that she will bring this bill back to the house for a second reading? and if so, could she name the date now and say she will stick to it? i say to my right honourable friend, we have made the government position clear. the second reading will be brought to the house after the whitsun recess. thank you, mr speaker. it is customary to thank the prime minister for customary to thank the prime ministerfor advance customary to thank the prime minister for advance sight of her statement. it was some surprise we all saw the statement not being delivered in the house of commons but elsewhere yesterday. can i ask the prime minister widely —— but elsewhere yesterday. can i ask the prime minister widely -- why but elsewhere yesterday. can i ask the prime minister widely —— why we didn't follow the usual protocol and parliament is the first to hear such state m e nts parliament is the first to hear such statements from the prime minister? mr speaker, let me give the prime minister some advice. this deal is

dead. stop this sharad. and let's get on with putting the decision back to the people once and for all. —— charade. the headlines this morning cry of doom. the benches opposite concentrate on ways to mount a leadership coup. where are they? that is exactly what they are doing this afternoon because they are not here to support the prime minister. this is no way to run the government. the prime minister is asking mps to vote for a deal that ta kes scotla nd asking mps to vote for a deal that takes scotland out of the single market and eventually out of the customs union. this simply cannot be allowed to happen. this is a rookie government blackmailing mps. look behind the smoke and mirrors. a new revised deal that hasn't even been negotiated with brussels. a second eu referendum, but only if you vote for the bill. a possible temporary customs union, which a future uk

government could change. and the european union have dismissed. a trade tariff arrangement which the former uk representative to the eu has described as the definition of insanity. mr speaker, none of what the prime minister announced yesterday was discussed with the devolved government in edinburgh. this really goes to the heart of the problem. in december 2016, the scottish government published a compromise position. this was rejected without discussion. scotland's voice has been ignored time and time again. brexit has made oui’ powers time and time again. brexit has made our powers stripped away from the scottish parliament. there is no respect for the devolved administrations by this government. westminster has ignored scotland. mr speaker, this is a sorry mess. look around. there is no support. there

is no support for the prime minister was dale. this dealfaces an is no support for the prime minister was dale. this deal faces an even bigger defeat than the last vote. tomorrow, communities will make their voice heard at our democratic european election. mr speaker, a vote for the scottish national party isa vote for the scottish national party is a vote to stop brexit. a vote to stop this economic madness. a vote is to stop —— respect scotland's decision in 2016. the prime minister has lost the confidence of her party. parliament will not support her. and she has lost the trust of the people. it is time, prime minister, to go. will you do it? cani minister, to go. will you do it? can i say to the right honourable gentleman to that i think he talks about the discussions with the scottish government. of course there have been many discussions with the scottish government. i made the first minister. my right honourable friend has held a number of meetings with the scottish government. the devolved administrations have been

party to the debates and discussions that have been taking place. can i just say this to the right honourable gentleman? he says a vote for the scottish nationalists is a vote not to leave the european union. well, a vote for the scottish nationalists is a vote to betray our democracy, a vote to betray our view of the people of the united kingdom. people asked us in this house to deliver brexit. we have a responsibility to do that. the question is, how we do that. the withdrawal agreement bill gives the opportunity to debate those issues about how we do that. and i say to the right honourable gentleman that this house should have those debates, come to the decision, stop ducking the issues and get on with thejob ducking the issues and get on with the job that the british people instructed us to do. what does the prime minister say to the many members of the public who think the government should have kept its promise to take us out on

the 29th of march, with or without the 29th of march, with or without the draft treaty? and what does she say to those millions of angry leave voters who do not see the agreement as any kind of brexit, but a lock in for many, many months, with no clear out —— no clear way out? cani out —— no clear way out? can i say with the greatest of respect to my right honourable friend, what i would say to those voters expected us to leave on the 29th of march was that the government position was we should leave on the 29th of march. the majority of the benches voted for us to leave on the 29th of march. sadly, the opposition and some others voted to keep us in on that date. hilary benn. given that this bill appears to have been sunk even before its publication, the prime minister must know that the only way 110w minister must know that the only way now to break the deadlock, which is the terrible news about british

steel shows, is damaging our economy. put the choice back to the british people. can i urge her at this 11th hour to take that one final step, to change her mind and to say that she will have a confirmatory referendum ? asi confirmatory referendum ? as i have indicated in a number of a nswe i’s as i have indicated in a number of a nswers to as i have indicated in a number of answers to questions this afternoon, i have not changed my view on the issue of a second referendum. i do believe we should be reflecting, putting into place the views of the people in the first referendum that took place on this issue. but i recognise there is a strength of feeling in this house on this issue, including from the right honourable gentleman and others, particularly on his benches. and that is why it is important that we are able, in this house, to determine this issue. that is best done through the passage of the bill, through the passage of the bill, through the passage of the withdrawal agreement bill, and that is why i said what i did yesterday. it is why i have done what i have done today on confirming that there will be a vote on a

second referendum, whether to hold a second referendum, whether to hold a second referendum, whether to hold a second referendum, in the withdrawal agreement bill. the government position will be clear. we don't think it right to hold a second referendum. but it will be four members of this house to be able to come together and to determine that view. and for those who believe they should be a second referendum, to put their case to the house and for the house to come to its decision. the prime minister tells us that if mps the prime minister tells us that if m ps vote the prime minister tells us that if mps vote for the withdrawal agreement bill, which we haven't even seen, let alone the amendments that are going to be put down to it, then we would leave the european union on the 31st ofjuly. how on earth does she now? because i have been discussing a timetable for putting this bill through and the timetable for a business motion has to be agreed in this house. but it is very clear

that on the timetable that we would put through bringing the bill back for a second reading after the whitsun recess, it would enable us to do exactly what i said, leave the european union on the 31st ofjuly. given the awful news about british steel, the government should stand up steel, the government should stand upfor steel, the government should stand up for manufacturing. industry needs a long—term deal to support investment, so given the reports coming out of cabinet yesterday, can she tell us, has the cabinet ruled out a long—term customs union being pa rt out a long—term customs union being part of the future partnership with

the eu that they are supposedly going to negotiate after this withdrawal agreement? have they ruled out a long—term customs union, yes or no? can i say to the right honourable lady, she referenced what happened to greybull capital's british steel. she will be aware there is a number of challenges facing the steel industry, notjust the uk but globally. supply is outstripping demand and a lot of the excess production is coming from china and that is why in the g 23 yea rs china and that is why in the g 23 years ago, we acted to bring china around the table to try and deal with the issue. she asks about the long term, the compromise solution i put forward and referenced in my statement is designed to ensure a future government can take that issue in the direction it wishes to ta ke issue in the direction it wishes to take it and for the house to

determine what