good morning and welcome to an historic day here at westminster. this a bbc brexit deal debate special. for the first time since 1982, parliament is sitting on a saturday to see if a brexit deal can finally be passed after more than three years. this morning boris johnson headed to the commons — last night, the prime minister urged mps to end a "painful chapter" and back his new deal. what matters is mps coming together across the house tomorrow to get this thing done. the prime minister is now inside the house of commons knowing every opposition party has said it will reject the deal — but with the main conservative brexiteer group now promising their support.

good morning and welcome to westminster on an historic session of parliament. mps are sitting on a saturday for the first time in 37 years to vote on borisjohnson‘s brexit deal. this morning it still looks extremely close, although in the last few minutes the prime minister has received the backing of the prominent conservative brexiteers known as the european research group who now say they will vote mps are also likely to vote on an amendment to the deal which would still force the government to seek a delay to leaving the eu, described as an insurance policy to avoid the risk of a no—deal brexit. nick eardley reports. more than three years after the brexit referendum, is today the day mps finally back a deal? some of them hate what borisjohnson has negotiated, arguing it takes us too far away from eu rules and will damage the economy.

but most tories think it's a good deal that gives the uk back the control they want. we've got the deal that allows us to get out of the backstop, that's abolished and we can do free trade agreements as one whole united kingdom around the world. this means, as one whole united kingdom, we can take back control, as we always said, of our borders, our money, our laws, do free trade deals, set our own future according to the democratic will of united kingdom. in a special sitting, the first on a saturday since the falklands war, mps will pass their judgment this afternoon. frankly, it's still too close to call with any certainty. whether the government gets the deal through today or not, could come down to just a few votes. mps are closer than ever to signing off on a plan but it's not certain they will. the prime minister spent much of yesterday trying to persuade mps. among them, tory brexiteers who refused to back theresa may's plan.

i will vote for his deal if it's made clear in the commons today that we will leave the transition period on the 31st of december 2020 and no later. labour votes could make the difference too. downing street has offered wavering mps a last—minute package, more input and votes on whether workers‘ rights here stay the same as those in europe. but labour's leadership says it's an empty gesture, not worth the paper it's written on and last nightjeremy corbyn urged his mps to vote to block the deal. brexit hasn't been simple and today won't be either. there's even a plan to approve the deal but only if a raft of legislation is passed first. that would mean we don't leave at the end of the month and could mean there are more tourists to come. nick eardley, bbc news, westminster. so let's take a closer look at what mps will vote on later. the brexit deal would see the uk pay around £33 billion

in a so—called ‘divorce bill‘ when leaving the eu. there will be a transition period until at least the end of 2020, during which the uk would abide by the eu‘s laws. the whole of the uk would leave the eu customs union, but with customs checks on some goods entering northern ireland from great britain. our assistant political editor, norman smith, is in the houses of parliament. it‘s all going to be about the numbers today? one about the numbers today? possibility is that it is n defining one possibility is that it is not a defining moment. because of this amendment tabled by sir oliver letwi n amendment tabled by sir oliver letwin that the deal should not go through until all the legislation has gone through. jonny may is the

conservative mp, stephen crabb, what do you make of the oliver letwin amendment and would you pack it? no, what i want from today is to provide some kind of clarity and public and the businesses, not that today will be the end of the story by any means, but we have marched up this mountain before and let the public down. we have come here with a job to do and the job is to give a clear indication, yes, no to the deal borisjohnson, rather unexpectedly, some might think, got with the eu. surely the point of the amendment, is to provide space for those worried about no deal. it doesn‘t kill off boris johnson‘s deal, worried about no deal. it doesn‘t kill off borisjohnson‘s deal, but it just ensures no kill off borisjohnson‘s deal, but itjust ensures no deal is off the table? that is oliver letwin's explanation of what his amendment does. but you have so many opponents are brexit enthusiastically supporting that amendment, tells you

it does something different. oliver letwin says it will make the politics are brexit more fuzzy in the days and weeks ahead. i don't think the country needs fuzzy, we need more clarity. that's why today provides a definitive yes or no to the deal. the risk is if you go straight for the boris johnson vote, he could lose? yes, it has been high—risk all along. i was one of the doubters in the summer of boris johnson. i wrote articles questioning his brexit strategy, but he went and reopened the negotiations, proved he was willing to compromise in a way no one thought he would compromise. people we re thought he would compromise. people were labelling him unfairly, it turns out, as this crass, hard edged brexiteer but he has proved to be more pragmatic. it is good for the country, good for northern ireland, protects the peace process and puts northern ireland in a good place economically and i think it is worth

passing. stephen crabb, thank you for your time. there is another idea floating around the ether and that is, if the letwin amendment is passed, could the government pull the vote on its deal. that would put no deal back on the table, so genuinely, we are in very, very uncertain numbers waters and the numbers are incredibly tight. anything could happen. let's look at the main numbers. and whether borisjohnson get enough votes to pass his deal. let‘s take a look at the figures. of 639 mps, the magic number boris johnson needs to get his deal over the line is 320. there are 287 conservative mps and the prime minister has to make sure every one

of them backs him — this includes 28 hard—line brexiteers. we know the prime minister can‘t rely on the snp, plaid cymru, and the lib dems and, at the moment, the dup‘s ten mps say they‘ll vote against the deal. then there are 23 former conservatives, recently kicked out of the party. we expect some, but not all, to vote for the deal. now, we come to labour. the majority will vote against the deal, but a small number are expected to vote with the government. borisjohnson has been trying to persuade and cajole labour mps but it‘s all very tight. let‘s discuss this with the conservative mp andrew mitchell and the liberal democrat mp layla moran. and the snp‘s damien lyndon. andrew mitchell, of those conservative mps that were kicked out of the party, do you think all of those will back the party today? i suspect all of

them, certainly most of them will because it follows the logic of some of the arguments they have been putting. so what are your good analysis shows, this will be decided by those labour mps, many of whom represent constituents in leave voting areas who are agonising about what to do in the best interests of their constituency and the country. what about this letwin amendment, will you support that? it tries to guarantee that no deal doesn‘t happen? no, i will not guarantee that no deal doesn‘t happen? no, iwill not support it. it isa happen? no, iwill not support it. it is a clever amendment tabled by one of the cleverest man in the commons and my friend and colleague. but it is not necessary. the central issue in britain is to get britain through this and into the wide debt negotiations and that is what i want to happen. isn't this going to wreck proceedings, isn‘t this a time for clarity and the letwin amendment, which you are backing, will stretch

things out again? we agreed that brexit is an ordeal and we want a solution and the liberal democrats have stood on a platform to stop brexit and another peoples vote. but you don't bounce the country into the biggest decision it has got to make off the back of five hours of discussion on a saturday. you have to do the saturday. all the amendment is doing is what people expect us to do, which is make the speeches we need to do, represent out speeches we need to do, represent our constituents and be backing it. we think we have got the numbers. our constituents and be backing it. we think we have got the numbersm it is called ? we think we have got the numbersm it is called? we think there is a good chance it will be but it means the deal will not be approved today, there will be an extension and no deal is off the table. there is no mandate for no deal, no majority in the house for no deal and then we can go and do things properly, then attach it with a people's vote and put it back to the people. what are

you trying to achieve with this amendment? i am hoping the snp will vote this deal down and vote for an extension of article 50 and vote it down. it is what happens with labour mps, i down. it is what happens with labour mps, lam down. it is what happens with labour mp5, i am afraid. i down. it is what happens with labour mps, lam afraid. i hope labour mps will not get if this over the line because they will not be forgiven in scotland. we need to move to a general election. in scotland, the labour party will not be forgiven across this country, they will have betrayed remainers and it will be on the head ofjeremy corbyn. language like betrayal and not forgiven, it isa like betrayal and not forgiven, it is a matter of conscience, everybody has different constituencies to say. it is wrong to have pressure put on colleagues, people should just vote as they sea bass? the way to avoid no deal, the way to avoid it is to vote for this deal today and get it through the door. the valid point

from letwin, if the deal was put down today without letwin and it went through, there is no guarantee the legislation that must follow will pass in time before the 31st of october and therefore, we could have no deal exit? what we need is a declaration by parliament we proceed with the steel and then the legislation will follow. —— this deal. there is ten or 11 days, nine sitting days for parliament to get through the legislation, what about the point if there is not enough time to do that? i am a former whip and that is possible to get this legislation through more or less at the same time as the 31st of october. this process has been through so many hurdles and loops, isn‘t it better to make a guarantee no deal can happen? today is about ensuring we get a deal through. then the oliver letwin proposition i believe will fall away. the key thing is for the country to embrace a deal so we don‘t get the no deal

circumstances which we don‘t want to see. we know there are tory mps voting for this deal today hoping it will lead to a transition and at the end of the transition then no deal happen. it is not true to say that bypassing this deal other legislation for this deal it averts no deal. the only way to stop no deal is to stop brexit and remain. if this deal goes to and is won by the prime minister, which is possible, will you then have the good grace to accept that is the will of this parliament and transport it and get it through in time? the big decision for every memberof time? the big decision for every member of parliament coming into the commons today for the first time in 37 years on a saturday, if i voted this will my constituents be better off? i have spent a long time thinking about this and i don't thinking about this and i don't think my constituents will be better off. anyone in there today to vote for a deal to make people poorer is doing a bad service for their constituents. i am

doing a bad service for their constituents. lam not doing a bad service for their constituents. i am not willing to make my constituents poorer. when i was elected in 2017 and took the seat of a conservative, the reason it happen is because there was an alliance of voters in my seat you don't want this hard brexit. sol could not vote for this deal because thatis could not vote for this deal because that is what my constituents want. if borisjohnson that is what my constituents want. if boris johnson does that is what my constituents want. if borisjohnson does lose all if letwi n if borisjohnson does lose all if letwin happens, do you expect him to obey the law and send the letter asking for an extension? a lot of talk about him going to the courts, he should just obey the law, shouldn‘t he? he should just obey the law, shouldn't he? the prime minister will obey the law, i voted to remain, but we have got to get this through we have had three years of shilly—shallying around and huge divisions in the country and the plummeting of our reputation, let‘s get this through the door and begin negotiations proper. thank you very much indeed. away from the commons, a rally is taking place in central london, organised by the campaign group "people‘s vote". calling for a further referendum, luxmy gopal has met with a group

of remain voters in sheffield, as they prepare to travel to the march. it will be an early start. you can sleep on the coach. i obviously am too young now, and was then too young to vote, and by turning up to protest is one of the only ways i can make my voice heard. i think it's really important that we go as a family because neither of them have actually got a voice. i feel my voice hasn‘t been heard. i was too young to vote in 2016 in the referendum, and in 2017 in the general election. so that‘s sort of where i‘ve gone with my slogan. and a picture to go with it, a zip tied mouth. i have lost plenty of votes in my life, and i'm happy to lose more but i'm really worried that this was an unfair result. ijust want us to double—check, you know, that this is something we do want to do before we commit to something that's just really

tough to undo. we're actually not getting a chance to put our view forward when circumstances have changed substantially since the initial referendum and, as part of the democratic process, one of the things that is available to us is protest. it‘s a bit white underneath. i might tidy that up a bit. i'm hoping to show my support for the people's vote. obviously, i don't have a say, unfortunately, but i think it's very important that those people now have a chance to voice their opinion. i‘m hoping this march demands a response, a clarification that we are going to have another people‘s vote, a second referendum, but i want an opportunity to have my voice heard. parliament is sitting on a saturday for the first time in 37 years to vote

on borisjohnson‘s brexit deal. so what‘s in the new deal that‘s being debated today? first, to avoid a hard border, northern ireland will remain aligned to a set of rules related to the eu‘s single market. northern ireland remains a part of the uk customs territory — but by avoiding a customs border on the island of ireland, there will be a de facto border for goods down the irish sea. the controversial ‘backstop‘ has been removed. and members of the northern irish assembly will have a say on the long—term application of eu law in northern ireland but any decision would be based on a simple majority. the timing of any votes depends on which amendments are chosen by the speaker of the commons, john bercow, but they are not expected before 2:30pm this afternoon. the most significant and controversial amendment is one put down by former tory sir oliver letwin, who now sits as an independent. let‘s take a closer look at that amendment. it would withhold parliamentary

support for the deal unless and until legislation implementing the agreement in uk law is passed by mps. if this is passed, it would force the prime minister to seek a further delay to brexit beyond the 31st october deadline — under the terms of the benn act passed last month. david shiels is a policy analyst at open europe — a think tank focusing on uk—eu relationship after brexit. thank you forjoining us. in your view, this new deal put forward by borisjohnson, is view, this new deal put forward by boris johnson, is it view, this new deal put forward by borisjohnson, is it better or worse than theresa may‘s deal? borisjohnson, is it better or worse than theresa may's deal? it is different because the backstop has gone and has been appraised by a front to stop. for northern ireland it is very different. it means northern ireland will continue to be in the uk‘s customs union that will supposedly be able to benefit from uk trade policy which it could not

have done under the original northern ireland only backstop that was put forward by the eu in 2017 — 2018. the treasury has not done an economic analysis as to what the deal means but mark carney has said the deal is potentially worse for the deal is potentially worse for the economy than the theresa may deal. analysts have said any form of brexit has an economic impact that is worse than remaining in the eu. ultimately, the economic impact of brexit will be decided by the nature of the future relationship with the eu, whether there is a free trade agreement and how close that is full to honour that is open by this brexit deal. what is your expectation on the economic impact of this? it is probably still open to question. the fact that there is a brexit deal will be betterfor the economy than a no—deal brexit which would have meant an economic hit for

the economy. the fact having a deal passed and secured by parliament would be better for the passed and secured by parliament would be betterfor the economy. than having no deal. in terms of these complex potential future customs arrangements for northern ireland, there is a cost attached to all of that, is there? for businesses involved and the government, etc? there would be a bureaucratic cost. the government would be able to help businesses with the cost attached to that. that would be something that could be helped by the government. ok, thank you very much indeed. we are just getting news from laura, who has said the government has said that they will send mps home if parliament votes for letwin back government will introduce the bill

on monday. number 10 plans to send mps home if they vote for letwin but the government will introduce a bill on monday. i was just speaking an hour ago to a labour mp who wants a second referendum and he said he had had that very same thing, the mps would basically kill the vote today, the main vote, if letwin passes. that is a clear threat to mps who have all been brought back to westminster on a saturday with very little time to die just the boris johnson deal, told it was a deal or die moment. if letwin goes through, they are all being told they will not get that chance than to vote for the deal if it is amended by this letwi n the deal if it is amended by this letwin amendment. the letwin move is a key game changer for many because it means the government would have to ask for an extension, the date for that expires today if the government cannot pass it scale through the house of commons today,

they are legally obliged by the benn act to ask for an extension. the government would kill the vote because they do not want that to go through. our assistant political editor, norman smith, is in the houses of parliament. that statement saying they would not let it go through if letwin passes. if letwi n let it go through if letwin passes. if letwin passes, the day is almost meaningless. the government will be saying, we are not going to bother and send mps home. it is a moot point whether that means the vote on the amended version would even take place and if it does take place and eve ryo ne place and if it does take place and everyone would say there was no purpose to it because the government hadn‘t even bothered to take part. that would put no deal back on the table from the government point of view because they would argue, well, the house of commons hasn‘t agreed to anything today, so we are heading towards leaving on october the 31st without an agreement. opponents

would say, hang on a sec, that means the benn act kicks in and you had to write a letter to the eu asking for a delay. that means on monday boris johnson metaphorically would end up in the courts as opponents sought to argue that, having failed to get his deal through, he has to seek a delay. what we don‘t know is how borisjohnson will deliver on his pledge to take us out come what may and october the 31st. he said he will abide by the law but equally he has said we are leaving on october the 31st. those two things seem contradictory, signing up to a delay till 31st of january but also leaving on october the 31st. either borisjohnson has at planning legal ruse to get through the benn act, or he will tap it out. —— a cunning, legal ruse. maybe he will make clear to brussels he is not interested in

the hope that eu countries will think that there really is no point giving britain another delay because they had done it so many times and we had calls from jean—claude juncker saying a deal is a deal, we don‘t need another prolongation. emmanuel macron yesterday said very similar. maybe the hope of team johnson is that the eu will simply decide, for head and say, we are fed up decide, for head and say, we are fed up with you brits can get out, we are not going to give you an extension. the opponents of mr johnson is adamant it has been squared off and they would give a delay if it were asked for. what if the government sends its mps home? that is what looks likely to happen if the letwin amendment is passed. so how is this being watched in brussels? our correspondent

adam fleming is there. the government could send mps home if they letwin amendment goes through. a letter asking for delay is legally bound to be sent by benn. there will be a meeting in brussels first thing in the morning to kick—start the deal being ratified on the side of the eu. there are a few legal hoops to be gone through. if it ends up in westminster there isa if it ends up in westminster there is a confusing picture, if there is a letter sent asking for a delay or there could be a letter sent, or chaos in westminster, at that meeting could be a discussion about what to do. in terms of an extension, the eu will only think about that when the request comes from the uk. as far as they are concerned that is a solution in search of a problem and they had been careful not to have had any formal, official discussions about it, or commit anything to paper. the focus of the eu is about getting the

deal through the uk parliament as soon as deal through the uk parliament as soon as possible and that is what you get people like emmanuel macron speaking like he did, and jean—claude juncker saying there is no need to prolong the process. they think that is a useful tactic, to apply pressure to mps, so they make apply pressure to mps, so they make a decisive decision. as we have seen time and again, what the ess does not have much of an impact about what is happening in westminster because it is all about the internal tactics and various factions of british parliament. like everyone in the world, the rest of the eu is waiting to see what happens. have you heard anything? if the vote on the deal does not go through number 10 sends mps home because they letwi n 10 sends mps home because they letwin amendment goes through, the government obliged to ask for an extension to the october 31 deadline and they had said they will still stick to that date. have you heard

of the means by which the government can get around that? have the eu beenin can get around that? have the eu been in conversations? had they expected any other moves from britain? the assumption on the eu side all done privately in the background, the law in the uk is pretty clear which means the request has to be made. it may not be that the prime minister ends up writing the prime minister ends up writing the letter, as he is instructed to do by the law. they are expecting it to be someone else, quite likely to embarrass the uk ambassador to brussels for the eu institutions. they will not start official discussions until the official request cans. the other line they have on this, the precedent they have on this, the precedent they have on this extension has to be made by eu leaders in person in the room together and that means he would need to have a special eu summit to approve that. the dates meted out the 27th, the 28th, or the

29th of october. there is little appetite for that to happen. if they had to do it, they have no choice. people are talking about the practicalities of and the technicalities and the politics of what the extension would be. it is worth remembering from an eu point of view how we got here. the eu made it on the issue of the northern ireland backstop which they wanted to bea ireland backstop which they wanted to be a permanent insurance policy that was always there. it could be a permanent solution for the border but the northern ireland assembly have the possibility to pull the plug on the arrangement. in four commit six or eight years we could all be here discussing how to keep the irish border open. the eu wanted to avoid that and had given up on that in order to get a deal that could potentially get through parliament. adam, thank you very much indeed. david shiels is a policy

analyst at open europe — a think tank focusing on uk—eu relationship after brexit it is obviously changing and moving. we may not even get a vote today if they letwin amendment goes through. what is your view about whether we will get a decision today and how the government might sidestep the benn act? they are placing all the hope that the minute that the deal will get passed in the house of commons. the numbers could be there but their numbers are very tight. it will be down to a few mps making their decision. presumably, that government will be putting massive pressure on conservatives not voting and others not voting for letwin. they want a clear run at a vote, a meaningful vote, on the deal itself. pressure on the speaker as well now. there is huge cross party support.

he has done everything to facilitate backbenchers in previous brexit debates in a way that has not been entirely helpful to the government andi entirely helpful to the government and i am sure he will make his decision based on those criteria are not what the government wants. we will have to wait and see whether or not he calls it. in terms of people voting, lots of talk about the labour mps who voting, lots of talk about the labourmps who might voting, lots of talk about the labour mps who might support the government. perhaps easier when they are in their constituencies. when people are back here, they are talking to their webspace to face, talking to their webspace to face, talking to their webspace to face, talking to colleagues face to face and it is altogether more difficult. —— face to face. even at the last minute mps can change their minds. evenif minute mps can change their minds. even if they had said they would definitely vote with the government it is not until their names appear on the division lest we can be absolutely sure. you think boris johnson, if the vote goes through, he potentially has the numbers

because he has the erg and some labour rebels. it is potentially there. that is about 293 voting for the deal and another 25 who will probably vote for it and it depends how many he can get to get up to the magic 320 he needs to get the deal passed. david shields, thank you very much indeed. the numbers are so tight and nobody knows if borisjohnson will get this vote to go ahead or certainly, if the deal go through. let‘s have another quick reminder as to how he can get the numbers across the line. in total 650 mps in the house of commons but seven sinn fein mps do not take their seats and the speaker and his three deputies also don‘t vote. that means the number you need to get to the winning post and geta you need to get to the winning post and get a commons majority is in practice, 320. the conservatives now have 287 mps, borisjohnson can be

confident of the support of most of them, but some may not vote for him, especially if he fails to win over the dup. which so far, the dup are holding out against him. labour have 242 mp5 holding out against him. labour have 2112 mps and their message from their leaderjeremy corbyn, is clearly to vote against the government. but how many can be persuaded to vote for the government‘s deal despite the party‘s official position is not clear and the answer is crucial. speculation it could be in single figures, possibly double figures but may be single figures. people indicating that mines can be changed, even when they are back in the commons, people will listen to the commons, people will listen to the debate. and there are the 36 independent mps, by far the largest group is the 23 q independent mps, by far the largest group is the 23 0 where the former conservatives who lost the whip or left and those previous conservatives are likely to back the deal, we have heard from david gauke and amber rudd and so on, indicating they want to support letwin but give

this deal a chance. there are 35 snp mps who will vote against the deal, as well the 19 liberal democrats. as things stand, the ten mps from the dup said they cannot back the plan but if they change their mind, that of course would prove pivotal. but, if they don‘t, it could be fatal for the deal. the independent group of change, who now have five mps are voting against, as are the four plaid cymru mps and the one green mp. caroline lucas. a reality check correspondent chris morris is with me. surreal, ithink correspondent chris morris is with me. surreal, i think is the word of the moment of where we are in terms of whether even this vote is going to go ahead? yes, number ten sources told laura kuenssberg, ivote to go ahead? yes, number ten sources told laura kuenssberg, i vote for letwi n told laura kuenssberg, i vote for letwin is a vote for delay and the whips will send everyone home. we are on this treadmill that keeps moving and keeps moving. it is an

indication, i think, moving and keeps moving. it is an indication, ithink, again moving and keeps moving. it is an indication, i think, again on how divided parliament is, how divided the country is and there is no fixed position on what should be done. borisjohnson position on what should be done. boris johnson clearly position on what should be done. borisjohnson clearly knows what he wa nts to borisjohnson clearly knows what he wants to do but getting it done is extremely difficult. i spoke to one mpafew extremely difficult. i spoke to one mp a few hours ago who said if the government sends mps home having forced everybody back on a saturday forced everybody back on a saturday for a do or forced everybody back on a saturday fora do ordie forced everybody back on a saturday for a do or die moment, people will be furious because they want a chance to express their view now and quickly because time is running out? people will be furious on all sides. again, it shows the division that is there. obviously, the biggest consequence of letwin passing is borisjohnson has a legal obligation extending brexit. the government said they will try and continue with their preparation to leave on the 3ist their preparation to leave on the 31st of october but then that

extension would be baked in. even if it was a short extension, to get things done it would mean the do or die moment on the 31st of october, probably would not be met. symbolically, it might not be great. let‘s cut you off, john bercow is in the house of commons kicking off the brexit deal debate. before i call the prime minister to make a statement, i want to make a very few introductory remarks. first, i want to thank, and i am sure colleagues across the house want to join me to thank, and i am sure colleagues across the house want tojoin me in thanking all of the staff of the house who have worked so hard to facilitate the setting today. i know that many of them have had to make special arrangements to be here, as have many honourable and right honourable members. iwould remind honourable members of what i said at the start of the session a week ago, be mindful about the impact of what they say, not only upon other

members, but upon others who follow proceedings. thirdly, i can inform the house i have selected an amendmenta in the house i have selected an amendment a in the name of sir oliver letwin... and the manuscript amendment in the name of peter kyle and others to motion two. this may be for the convenience of the house, and although the second motion is debatable, i think it would be convenient for the two motions to be debated together so reference to the second motion may be made in the debate and, if the second motion is moved, i will put the question or questions on that motion without separate debate. order. the statement, the prime minister. mr speaker, i want to begin by echoing what you have just said about my gratitude to all members of the house for assembling on a

saturday for the first time in 37 yea rs saturday for the first time in 37 years and indeed, to all members of the house of commons staff who have worked to make this sitting possible. i know it has meant people giving up their saturday, breaking into their weekend at a time when families want to be together. of course, it means missing at least the end of england‘s world cup quarterfinal and i apologise to the house for that and i wish i could watch it myself. i know the honourable member for cardiff west has postponed his 60th birthday party, if not its 60th birthday, to be here! mr speaker, the house has gone to a great deal of trouble to assemble here on a saturday for the first time in a generation. and, i do hope that in assembling for the purposes of a meaningful vote that we will be indeed allowed to have a meaningful vote this evening. with

permission, mr speaker, ishall meaningful vote this evening. with permission, mr speaker, i shall make a statement on the new agreement with our european friends. the house will need no reminding that this is the second deal and the fourth vote three and a half years after the nation voted for brexit. during those years, friendships have been strained, families divided and the attention of this house consumed by attention of this house consumed by a single issue that has at times, felt incapable of resolution. but, i hope mr speaker, this is the moment when we can finally achieve that resolution and reconcile the instincts that compete within us. many times within the last 30 years, i have heard our european friends remark that this country is half—hearted in its eu membership. and it is true, that we in the uk, have often been at backmarker, opting out of the single currency,

not taking part in schengen, very often trying to block some collective ambition. and in the last three and a half years, it has been striking that members on all sides of this house, have debated brexit almost entirely practical terms. in an argument that has focused on the balance of economic risk and advantage. and i don‘t think i can recall a time when i have heard a single member stand up and call for britain to play her full part in the political construction of a federal europe. and i don‘t think i have called a single member to go for closer union or deep integration or a federal destiny... perhaps i have missed it, but! a federal destiny... perhaps i have missed it, but i don‘t think i have heard much of it, mr speaker. and there is a whole side of that, a whole side of that debate that you

hear regularly in other european capitals that is simply absent from our national conversation. i don‘t think that has changed much in the last 30 years. but, if we have been sceptical, and if we have been anxious about the remoteness of the bureaucracy, if we have been dubious about the rhetoric of union and integration, if we have been half—hearted europeans it seems logical that with part of our hearts, with half of our hearts, we feel something else. a sense of love and respect for european culture and civilisation, of which we are a part. i desire to cooperate with our friends and partners in everything, creatively, are ticked physically, intellectually, a sense of our shared destiny and a deep

understanding of the eternal need, especially after the horrors of the last century, for britain to stand as one of the grant holt of peace and democracy in our continent. and it is our continent. it is precisely because we are capable of feeling both things at once, sceptical about the modes of eu integration as we are, but passionate and enthusiastic about europe. that‘s the whole experience of the last three and a half years has been so difficult for this country and so divisive. and thatis this country and so divisive. and that is why it is now so urgent for us that is why it is now so urgent for us to move on and to build a new relationship with our friends in the eu, on the basis of a new deal. a deal that can heal the rift in british politics, unite the warring

instincts in us all. and now is the time for this great house of commons to come together and bring the country together today. as i believe, as i believe, people at home are hoping and expecting. with a new way forward and a new and better deal, both for britain and for our friends better deal, both for britain and for ourfriends in the eu. and that is the advantage of the agreement we have struck with our friends in the last two days. because this deal allows the uk, whole and entire, to leave the eu on october the 31st, in accordance with the referendum, while simultaneously looking forward toa while simultaneously looking forward to a new partnership based on the closest ties of friendship and cooperation. and i pay tribute to our european friends for escaping the prison of existing positions.

and sharing the vision to be flexible by reopening their withdrawal agreement. and thereby addressing the deeply felt concerns of many in this house. one of my most important jobs is of many in this house. one of my most importantjobs is to express those concerns to our european friends and i shall continue to listen to all honourable members throughout the debate today, to meet with anyone, on any side and to welcome the scrutiny of the house will bring to bear if, as i hope we proceed to consider their withdrawal bill next week. today, this house has a historic opportunity to show the same breadth of vision as our european neighbours. the same ability, resolve, to reach beyond past disagreements by getting brexit done. and moving this country

forwards, as we all yearn to do. this agreement provides for a real brexit, taking back control of our borders, laws, money, farming, fisheries and trade. amounting to the greatest single restoration of british sovereignty in parliamentary history. it removes the backstop which would have held us against our will in the customs union and much of the single market. for the first time in almost five decades, the uk will be able to strike free trade deals with our friends across the world to benefit the whole country, including northern ireland. article four of the protocol states, northern ireland is part of the customs territory of the united kingdom. it adds, nothing in this protocol to prevent northern ireland from realising the preferential market access in any free trade deals, on the same terms as goods

produced in other parts of the united kingdom. our negotiations have focused on the uniquely sensitive nature of the border between northern ireland and the republic. and we have respected those sensitivities. above all, we, and our european friends, have preserved the letter and the spirit of the belfast good friday agreement and upheld the long—standing areas of cooperation between the uk and ireland, including the common travel area. and as i told the house on the 3rd of october, in order to prevent a regulatory board on the island of ireland, we propose a regulatory zone covering all goods, including agri— food, eliminating any need for associated checks at the border. mr speaker, in this agreement we have gone further by finding a solution to the vexed question of customs which many in this house

have raised. our agreement ensures, u nfettered have raised. our agreement ensures, unfettered market access for goods moving from northern ireland to the rest of the united kingdom‘s internal market. it ensures there should be no tariff on goods circulating within the uk customs territory between great britain and northern ireland unless they are at risk of entering the eu. it ensures an open border on the island of ireland, a common objective of eve ryo ne ireland, a common objective of everyone in this house. and it ensures, for those living and working alongside the border there will be no visible or practical changes to their lives, they can carry on as before. i believe this isa carry on as before. i believe this is a good arrangement, reconciling the special circumstances and northern ireland with the minimum possible bureaucratic consequences and of arrival in northern ireland and of arrival in northern ireland and it is precisely to ensure those

arrangements are acceptable to the people of northern ireland that we had made consent a fundamental element of this new deal. so no arrangements can be imposed on northern ireland if they do not work for northern ireland. the people of northern ireland will have the right, under this agreement, to express withhold their consent to these provisions by means of a majority vote in their assembly four yea rs majority vote in their assembly four years after the end of the transition. if the assembly chooses to withhold consent, these provisions will cease to apply after two years during which a joint committee of the uk and eu would propose a new way forward in concert with northern ireland to‘s institutions. as soon as this house and as the process of extracting ourselves from the eu to be

completed, the exciting enterprise of building a new relationship with our friends of building a new relationship with ourfriends can of building a new relationship with our friends can begin, of building a new relationship with ourfriends can begin, which has been too long delayed and they would delay any further. i do not wish this project to be the project of any one government or any one party but rather the endeavour of the united kingdom as a whole. only this parliament can make this new relationship the work of the nation and so parliament should be at the heart of decision—making as we develop our approach and i acknowledge that in the past, we have not always acted perhaps in that spirit. as we take forward our friendship with our closest neighbours, and construct that new relationship, i would ensure that a broad and open process draws upon the wealth of expertise in every pa rt the wealth of expertise in every part of this house, including select

committees and their chairs, every party and every member who wishes to contribute would be invited to do so and we should start by debating the mandate for our negotiators in the next phase. mr speaker, the ambition for our future friendship is contained in the revised political declaration, which also provides for this has to be free to decide our own laws and regulations. —— house. i have complete faith in this has to choose regulations that are in our best traditions of the highest standard... ourtraditions best traditions of the highest standard... our traditions of the highest standards of environmental protections and workers‘ rights. no one anywhere in this chamber believes in lowering standards. instead... a lot of gesticulation.

the statement by the prime minister must be heard and it will be. mr speaker, i am grateful. must be heard and it will be. mr speaker, iam grateful. no must be heard and it will be. mr speaker, i am grateful. no one believes in lowering standards, we believes in lowering standards, we believe in improving them, as we will be able to do. and seizing the opportunities of our new freedoms, for example, free from the common agricultural policy. we will have a far simpler system where we will reward farmers for improving the environment and animal welfare, many of whose provisions are impossible under the current arrangements, instead of just paying under the current arrangements, instead ofjust paying them for acreage. and free from the common fisheries policy, we can ensure sustainable yields based on the latest science are not outdated methods of setting quotas. and these restored powers will be available, not simply to this government by every future british government of

every future british government of every party to see as they see fit. -- is every party to see as they see fit. —— is whether to use. that is what is meant in practice by taking back control of our destiny. our first decision, on which i believe there will be unanimity, is that, in any future trade negotiations, with any country, and the national health service will not be on the table. mr speaker... mr speaker, iam convinced... mr speaker, iam convinced... mr speaker, iam convinced that an overwhelming majority in this house, regardless of our personal views, wishes to see brexit delivered in accordance with the referendum, a majority. and, in this crucial mission, there can no longer be any argument for further

delay. as someone who passionately believed that we had to go back to our european friends to seek a better agreement, i must tell the house that come up with this new deal, the scope for future and fruitful negotiation has run its course stop they said that we could not reopen the withdrawal agreement, mr speaker. they said we could not be opened wedge agreement, they said we could not change anything about it or abolish the backstop, mr speaker. we had done both. it is now myjudgment that speaker. we had done both. it is now my judgment that we have speaker. we had done both. it is now myjudgment that we have reached the best possible solution. those who ee, best possible solution. those who agree, like me, that brexit must be delivered and who, like me, prefer to avoid a no deal outcome must abandon the delusion that this house

can delay again. i must tell the housein can delay again. i must tell the house in all candour that there is very little appetite among our friends in the eu for this business to be protected by one extra day. they have had three and a half years of this debate. it has distracted them from their own projects and their own ambitions. and, if there is one feeling that unites the british public with the growing number of officials in the eu, it is a burning desire to get brexit done. and i must tell the house again, in all candour, that whatever letters they may seek to enforce the government to write, it cannot change my judgment that further delay is pointless, expensive and deeply corrosive of public trust. people simply will not understand how politicians can say with one

breath that they want delay to avoid no deal and then with the next breath that they still want delay when a great deal is there to be done. now is the time, now is the time, mr speaker, to get this thing down. i say to all members, let us come together as democrats to end this debilitating feud. let us come together as democrats to get behind this deal. the one proposition that fulfils the verdict of the majority, but which also allows us to bring together the two halves of the house and the two halves of the nation by let‘s beat now for the 52 and a 48 but let‘s go for a deal to heal this country. let‘s go for a deal to heal the country and will allow us all to

express legitimate desires for the deepest possible friendship and partnership with our neighbours. a deal that allows us to create a shared destiny with an added deal that also allows us to express our confidence in our own democratic institutions, to make our own laws, to determine our own future, to believe in ourselves once again as an openly generous, global, outward —looking, free trade in united kingdom. that is the prospect that this deal offers our country. it is a great prospect and a great deal, andi a great prospect and a great deal, and i commend it to the house. a great prospect and a great deal, and i commend it to the houselj call the leader of the opposition, jeremy called then. thank you, mr speaker. ijoin jeremy called then. thank you, mr speaker. i join you jeremy called then. thank you, mr speaker. ijoin you in thanking eve ryo ne speaker. ijoin you in thanking everyone for coming in to the house this morning cleaning staff and

catering staff, security staff, officials, they have given up a weekend in order to help their deliberations. i want to thank the prime ministerfor an deliberations. i want to thank the prime minister for an advanced copy of his statement. he has renegotiated their withdrawal agreement and made it even worse. he has renegotiated the political declaration and made that even worse. we are having a debate today ona worse. we are having a debate today on a text for which there is no economic impact assessment, and no accompanying legal advice. this country thought sought to avoid scrutiny throughout the process. —— has sought. the same government that spent the last few weeks negotiating and secret to remove from the withdrawal agreement legally binding commitments on workers‘ rights and the environment. this government cannot be trusted and these benches will not be duped. neither will the

government‘s own workers, the head of the civil service union, prospect, yesterday met the right honourable member for surrey heath. in conclusion, he said, i asked for reassu ra nces in conclusion, he said, i asked for reassurances that the government would not divert on workers‘ rights after brexit stopped he could not give me those assurances. as for the much hyped world leading environment bill then legally binding targets will not be enforceable until 2037. for this government, the climate emergency can always wait. mr speaker, this deal risks peoples jobs rights at work, the environment and the national health service. we must be honest about what the deal means for our manufacturing industry

and people‘s jobs. not means for our manufacturing industry and people‘sjobs. not only means for our manufacturing industry and people‘s jobs. not only does means for our manufacturing industry and people‘sjobs. not only does it reduce access to the market of our biggest trading partner, it leaves us biggest trading partner, it leaves us without a customs union which will damage industries all across this country and every one of our constituencies. from nissan in sunderland, heinz in wigan, airbus in broughton and jaguar land rover in birmingham, thousands of british jobs depend on a strong manufacturing sector, and a strong manufacturing sector, and a strong manufacturing sector, and a strong manufacturing sector needs market through fluid supply chains all across the european union. a vote for this deal would be a vote to cut manufacturing jobs all across this country. this deal, mr speaker, would inevitably and absolutely inevitably lead to a trump trade deal. forcing the uk to die badge

from the highest standards and expose ourfamilies from the highest standards and expose our families once again to chlorine chicken and hormone treated beef. —— to diverge. chlorine chicken and hormone treated beef. -- to diverge. i did say the statement from the prime minister must be heard but the statement from the leader of the opposition must also be heard. this dealfails the leader of the opposition must also be heard. this deal fails to enshrine the principle that we keep pace with the european union on environmental standards and protections, putting at risk current wills from air pollution standards to chemical safety. we all know public concern about these issues, all at the same time that we are facing a climate emergency. as for workers‘ rights, we simply cannot give the government a blank cheque. mr speaker, you don‘t have to take my word for all of this. listen, for

example, to the tuc general secretary frances o‘grady, who this deal, mr speaker would be a disaster for working people. this deal, mr speaker would be a disaster for working peoplem would hammer the economy, costjobs and sell workers‘ rights down the river. listen to make uk, representing british manufacturers who say, "this is make uk, comments. commitments to the closest possible trading relationships and goods have gone. under this deal, trading relationships and goods have gone. underthis deal, differences in regulation between the uk and the eu will add cost and bureaucracy. our companies will face a lack of clarity, inhibiting investment and

planning" macro. listen to the dealer lines who said the deal amounted to a very sad brexit read from a climate perspective. the message is clear, this deal is not good forjobs, damaging for our industry and threat to our environment and our natural world. it's environment and our natural world. it‘s not a good dealfor our country and future generations will feel the impact. it should be voted down today by this house. mr speaker, i also totally understand the frustration and the fatigue across the country and in this house. but we simply cannot vote for a deal thatis we simply cannot vote for a deal that is even worse than the one the house rejected three times. the government‘s own economic analysis shows this deal would make the poorest region is even poorer and cost each person in this country

over £2000 per year. if we vote for a deal that makes our constituents poorer, we are not likely to be forgiven for doing that. mr speaker, the government is claiming that if we support their deal, it will get brexit done. and that backing them todayis brexit done. and that backing them today is the only way to stop or no deal. i simply say, nonsense. supporting the government this afternoon would merely fire the starting pistol in a race, a race to the bottom in regulations and standards. and if anyone had any doubts about this, we only have to listen to what their own honourable members have been saying. like the one yesterday, who rather let the cat out of the bag, saying members should back this deal as it means we can leave with no deal by 2020. the

cat has truly got out of the bag. so can the prime minister confirm whether this is the case and, that ifa whether this is the case and, that if a free—trade agreement not been done, it would mean britain falling onto world trade organisation terms by december next year with only northern ireland having preferential access to the eu market? no wonder the foreign secretary had said this represents, "a cracking dealfor northern ireland, they would retain frictionless access to the single market". it does beg the question, mr speaker, why can‘t the rest of the uk get a cracking deal by maintaining access to the single market. the taoiseach said, it allows the all ireland economy to develop and one which protects the european single market. some members of this house do welcome an all ireland economy, but i didn‘t think that included the government and the

conservative and the unionist party. the prime minister declared in the summer, under no circumstances would i allow the eu or anyone else to create any kind of division down the irish sea. you cannot trust a word that he says. mr speaker, voting for a deal today won‘t end brexit. it won‘t deliver certainty and the people should have the final say. labour is not prepared to sell out the communities that we represent. we are not prepared, we are not prepared to sell out their future and we will not back this sell—out deal. this is about our communities now, and about our future

generations. the prime minister. mr speaker, i must confess i am disappointed by the time the right honourable gentleman has taken today. because i had thought he might rise to the occasion and see that the electorate, i believe his own electorate would want to do and thatis own electorate would want to do and that is to get brexit done. i must say, i thought that he would wish to reflect the will of the people who voted for brexit in such numbers in 2016 and have waited for a very long time. he is wrong about environmental and social protection. this country will maintain the very highest standards and we will lead into environmental protection and social protection across europe and the world. we lead, for instance in our commitment to be carbon neutral by 2050 and i have told him many times before, this freedom brexit

gives us the opportunity to do things we have not been able to do and that are deeply desired by the british people, such as banning the live export of animals. and to say nothing of many, many other things we can do differently and better. he is wrong, mr speaker, about business. the overwhelming view from business. the overwhelming view from business as they are great opportunities from brexit, but also as both sir stuart rose, who i think was a former chairman of the remain campaign and the governor of the bank of england have said today, this is a good dealfor the british economy. as i look ahead, mr speaker, the only risk icy to the british economy and other catastrophic plans of the right honourable gentleman and his semi—marxist party. what british business at once is the certainty and the stability of getting brexit

done on october the 31st and then the opportunity to build a new future with our european partners and to do free trade deals around the world. mr speaker, he is wrong about northern ireland, which will exit the eu customs union along with the rest of the uk. i may say in defiance of what the commission and indeed the irish government had intended. and he talks about trust, mr speaker. this is a right honourable gentleman, i don‘t wish to be unnecessarily adversarial today, but this is, this is a right honourable gentleman, who pay technique does not trust his own party. he doesn‘t trust the shadow chancellor and above all, he has not been willing to trust the people of this country by granting them the right to adjudicate on him and his policies in a general election. he

won‘t trust the people and he doesn‘t trust the people by delivering on the result of their referendum in 2016. mr speaker, i suggest in all humility and candour to the house, they should ignore the pleadings of the honourable gentleman and vote for an excellent deal that will take this country and ta ke deal that will take this country and take the whole of europe forward. mr kenneth clarke. mr speaker, the prime minister began his statement, of which i am grateful, by saying that how rare it had been in this house ever for people to support federalism and a united states of europe. and i entirely agree with that. federalism and a belief in a superstate are as rare in this country as they are nowadays in every one of the other 27 member

states. would he accept that for the last 50 years, the conservative party, the vast majority of the conservative party and all four conservative party and all four conservative prime ministers, in whose government i served, believe that membership of the european union gave us a stronger voice politically in the world, as one of the three leading members of the european union, and gave us access toa european union, and gave us access to a free trade market which enabled us to a free trade market which enabled us to bring a strong and competitive economy. would he reassure me, as i show him i will vote for his deal, once we have given legislative effect to it. when he goes on to negotiate the eventual, long—term arrangements, he will seek a solution where we have the same com pletely solution where we have the same completely open access across the channel, across the irish border to

trade and invest in both directions with the european union that we have now, even if we have to sacrifice the political benefits we have hitherto enjoyed from membership of the union? mr speaker, i wish to agree with my right honourable friend in at least part of his analysis. he says there is scepticism across the eu and across the continent at the moment about federalism and the desire to build a european union superstate. i think he is right in that, mr speaker. but u nfortu nately he is right in that, mr speaker. but unfortunately that scepticism has not percolated up, as it were, to the elites that run the eu and those who set the agenda in brussels. order, order. every memberwho who set the agenda in brussels. order, order. every member who has the floor must be heard. the prime

minister. i think i am the floor must be heard. the prime minister. i think! am making a valid point, mr speaker, which is that in brussels, the message my right honourable friend sense has not been perfectly understood and they continue with a large number of federalist project. i was at the european council in the last couple of days, hearing the distinguished president of france calling for a banking union. there is a strong desire, they wish to intensify by creating a defence pact. there is a strong desire, a banking union, mr speaker! there is a strong desire, a strong desire to continue the process that is... they want to continue a process that would meet the scepticism of notjust my right

honourable friend, but millions of people around the eu. i can give him the absolute reassurance that in the course of the negotiations, in which, as i say, we would want the entire house, or as many possible to ta ke entire house, or as many possible to take part, we will ensure we have exactly what i think he desires, a zero tariff, zero quota of free trade partnership so there is the maximum trade and increasing trade between our economies. ian blackford. thank you mr speaker and cani blackford. thank you mr speaker and can ijoin you in thanking all the stuff that has made this setting possible and my thanks to the prime minister for possible and my thanks to the prime ministerfor advanced possible and my thanks to the prime minister for advanced sight of his statement. mr speaker, northern ireland 13, scotland, zero. that is the number of references to northern ireland in his statement. not one

reference, not one to scotland. mr speaker, the prime minister has returned from brussels to present a deal that he knows, that we all know is actually worse than theresa may‘s deal. a deal that would see scotland shafted by this united kingdom government. left at an economic disadvantage with scotland‘s views and interests totally disregarded by this prime minister and his government. mr speaker, the scottish national party could not have been clearer. we would support any mandate to approach the european union, to remain in the single market and the customs union or simply remain in the european union altogether. yet the prime minister has made it clear, he was not, and is not interested, in meaningful

discussions with the snp or with our scottish government. he and his cronies at number ten don‘t care about scotland. this tory government has sold scotland out and once again, they have let scotland down. by again, they have let scotland down. by rightfully, northern ireland has been allowed special arrangements to remain in the eu single market and the customs union, the prime minister will not afford scotland the same arrangements. he didn‘t even consider giving scotland a fair deal. mr speaker, despite the fact the scottish people, like the people of northern ireland, voted overwhelmingly to remain in the european union, this prime minister has never entertained the notion of giving scotland the same arrangements that northern ireland gets in this deal. the truth is, this prime minister doesn‘t care

about scotland. he and his government have treated the scottish government, our scottish parliament and the scottish people with nothing but contempt. mr speaker, not a single mp who cares about scotland‘s future should consider supporting the prime minister today. they should stand with the scottish national party and vote this deal down. says this: any and all assessments of any brexit outcome showed that the united kingdom and scotland will be poorer no matter how we leave the european union. people up and down scotla nd european union. people up and down scotland and his brexit fan boys have ignored and shafted scotland. mr speaker, england is getting what it voted for, wales is getting what it voted for, wales is getting what it voted for, and northern ireland

is getting a special deal but scotland, that democratically voted to remain, is being ignored and treated as second—class nation by this government. and the prime minister tell us now how will he justify himself to the people of scotla nd justify himself to the people of scotland at the general election when he cannot he fails and when the brexit banking fan club from all quarters fails, will he finally respect the mandate of the scottish people and let them have their say on ourfuture? people and let them have their say on our future? mr speaker, i thank the right honourable gentleman and i am sure he will want to join the right honourable gentleman and i am sure he will want tojoin me and iam sure am sure he will want tojoin me and i am sure his colleagues will want tojoin me in congratulating the england rugby team on a 40—16 victory over australia. there was a lot of enthusiasm, i thought, in his

response. mr speaker, i must say! think he is being little a bit churlish in his response because after a ll churlish in his response because after all i didn‘t mention england andi after all i didn‘t mention england and i didn‘t mention wales. there reason that northern ireland is a particular subject of discussion, it isa particular subject of discussion, it is a legitimate point, there are legitimate circumstances in northern ireland at the border which deserve particular respect and sensitivity and that is what they have received in this deal. it is a great deal for england, a great dealfor wales, a great dealfor england, a great dealfor wales, a great deal for scotland and a great dealfor northern great deal for scotland and a great deal for northern ireland. great deal for scotland and a great dealfor northern ireland. the people of scotland now have their chance as championed by wonderful scottish conservative mps to take back control of their fisheries from the end of next year and allow the people of scotland at last to enjoy the benefits of their spectacular marine wealth in a way they would be denied under the scottish

nationalist party, who, as i never tire of telling you, it would hand back control of scottish fishing to brussels. mr iain duncan-smith. mr speaker, may i take issue with the prime minister gently that, for 27 yea rs, prime minister gently that, for 27 years, some of us have been warning about that federal nature of the european union? i said gently. may i also say to my honourable friend that i am in real agreement as i stand here today with my right honourable friend, the father of the house, he has said that he will back this deal today, so will i stop i wa nt to this deal today, so will i stop i want to ask him therefore in that spirit, would he please come to the dispatch box and ask the member for west dorset to is now recognising we need to have a meaningful vote to withdraw his amendment and give the

british people what they are dying for is a decision on brexit?” british people what they are dying for is a decision on brexit? i am full of respect for the contribution is my right honourable has friends over many yea rs is my right honourable has friends over many years on this subject and idid not over many years on this subject and i did not mean in any way to exclude him from saying he had not made important contributions on the subject of a federal europe. i said i had not heard people up and speaking up in favour of integration of this country into a federal eu, mr speaker stop on his point about the amendment i believe is being proposed and i think you have accepted from the right honourable member, my right honourable friend, from west dorset. i do think this is a momentous occasion for our country and our parliament and it would be a great shame if the opportunity to have a meaningful vote, which is

what believe this house has been invoked to deepen it would be taken away from us. i say that with the greatest respect to my right honourable friend who is actuated by the best possible intentions. the prime minister's deal removes protections on workers' rights. it puts a broader down... order, order. we have all agreed recently on the importance of mutual respect. the leader of the liberal democrats is entitled to be heard and believe me she will not, under any circumstances, be shouted down. the prime minister‘s deal removes protections on workers‘ rights. it puts a broader down the irish sea

and, according to the government‘s own analysis will damage our economy ona own analysis will damage our economy on a scale greater than the financial crash. today, hundreds of thousands of people will be outside demanding a final say in a peoples vote. isn‘t the truth is that the reason the prime minister refuses their calls is because he knows that, if given the option, that people will reject his bad deal and choose to remain in the european union? well, mr speaker, i am afraid the right honourable lady is not correct in what she says. the new deal does absolutely nothing to remove protections from workers or from the environment. on the contrary it gives us the opportunity to strengthen such protections. she asked for the people to have a final

say, mr speaker, at the ballot box and yet has been preventing a general election, mr speaker. instead of campaigning in a general election she has been in brussels asking the eu not to give this country a new and better deal. the mere fact that we had a great deal before as today is a tribute to the single lack of influence of the liberal democrats in brussels. single lack of influence of the liberal democrats in brusselsm will not be possible to call everybody in a statement and we will wa nt everybody in a statement and we will want to proceed with the debate in the nations. there is a premium on brevity from back and front benches alike. despite the fact that those who had opposed brexit had tried to undermine their negotiating position at every turn and despite the fact the benn act sought to remove the strongest negotiating leader, the prime minister has done what was said to be impossible to macro weeks

ago and got the eu to reopen and change its negotiating position. does he agree with me that during the referendum the british parliament made a promise to the british people to deliver on their decision and today is the day to deliver on that promise?” decision and today is the day to deliver on that promise? i thank the right honourable gentleman to what he has said and he is correct that i do believe that this excellent deal dispels the doubts of many people about what this country will achieve and will achieve in the future. i thank my fellow campaigner on this issue for the way he has stood up and the vision we both share for this country with an open free trading and global economy. this is what this deal allows and i hope the house endorses it. mr speaker, we

are in —— weakness in this house over brexit should not show weakness. we should respect the decision of the people to leave the european union. we support that we had continued to support that. it must be brexit for the whole of the united kingdom, leaving the single market and the rest of the customs union. this deal put northern ireland, yes, in the uk customs union but applies de facto order european union customs code. yes, it does, read the detail. it also puts us does, read the detail. it also puts us in their vat regime, the single market regime for a large part of goods and agri— food without any consent up front, contrary to the agreement made in 2017 which said only regulatory difference could be

made without reference to the executive and the assembly. it rides a coach and horses through the good friday agreement. it was once said no british prime minister could ever agree to such terms. and indeed those who sought the leadership of the tory party said that at our conference. will he now abide by that and please reconsider the fact that and please reconsider the fact that we must leave as one nation together? there may be special circumstances for northern ireland but that can only be with the consent of the people of northern ireland, unionists and nationalists together. that is the basis on which the peace process, the political process has advanced and he must respect that. mr speaker, first of all, iam

respect that. mr speaker, first of all, i am grateful to the right honourable gentleman in the sense that, together, he and i and the rest of his group did make a case powerfully to the eu that it was necessary for northern ireland to come out of the customs union, not a point that was accepted by then and we we re point that was accepted by then and we were successful in that. and as far as he is critical of the arrangements, the significant point about a customs union is it is a union that sets its own tariffs on its own duties at the perimeter around that customs union. that is what the whole of the uk will deepen including northern ireland. it was not quite let‘s be frank, what the european commission or our european friends thought to be the result of these negotiations. it is a great success for northern ireland and the whole of the country. the arrangements that have made all of that possible of course are temporary and are determined by consent. i must say, mr speaker, in

all frankness, i do think it a pity that it all frankness, i do think it a pity thatitis all frankness, i do think it a pity that it is still necessary for one side or the other in the debate about northern ireland to have a veto. after all, i must be very frank about this, mr speaker. after all, the people of this country had taken a great decision, embracing the entire four nations of this country by a simple majority vote that went 52—48, which we are honouring now. ithink that went 52—48, which we are honouring now. i think that principle should be applied elsewhere and i see no reason why it should not be applied in northern ireland as well. it is in full compatibility with the good friday agreement. mr speaker before i decide whether to jump on the bus of the prime minister i would like to bea the prime minister i would like to be a little clearer about the destination, i would like to be

reassured that it remains the deep and special partnership with the european union that we promised the british people and our 2017 election ma nifesto. british people and our 2017 election manifesto. in the absence of the uk wide backstop which has gone from the package, the best way to give us that reassurance is to ensure a proper role for parliament in the process of the future negotiations. could the prime minister today make a commitment to accept amendments which the previous government agreed with prevail? mr speaker, i can certainly give that commitment. thank you, very much, mr speaker. this agreement will maintain friction free access to the european market for northern ireland. and the

prime minister therefore explain why he is so determined to deny that exact same benefit to the rest of the united kingdom? i say to him, if he presses on with that path, he will not heal the rift to which he referred a moment ago, he would only serve to widen further. mr speaker, the right honourable gentleman, for whom i have a high regard, is i think one of those who believes we should delay further in the eu. i dent believe that. i think we should come out as one uk. —— i do not. there is one big difference between northern ireland and the other constituent parts of the uk and that was evident in the good friday agreement. it was evident in the treatment of the land border with sensitivity and respect. that is agreed on all sides of this house and is appreciated by the right

honourable gentleman himself. will my right honourable friend personally guarantee that in the bill, their withdrawal bill, there will be a guarantee to protect, in practice, our parliamentary sovereignty and furthermore, that in relation to the withdrawal agreements, that there will be provision to protect the united kingdom from any harmful matters relating to our vital, national interests under our parliamentary system which will guarantee that this house will decide if there are any situations where we need to prevent eu laws from being harmful to those vital national interests during the course of the future arrangements that are being put in place? prime minister. mr speaker, the right honourable gentleman, who has campaigned on this matterfor

many, has campaigned on this matterfor any has campaigned on this matterfor many, many years and indeed, there isa many, many years and indeed, there is a sense in which this occasion today, is a colossal vindication of his parliamentary career in the sense that he has long campaigned for us to come out of the eu. he raises a particular and important point about our ability to protect this country from injurious or vexatious legislation coming from the eu during the period of the ip andi the eu during the period of the ip and i can give him that assurance we will have such protection. the prime minister‘s predecessor said in this place, no british prime minister could ever accept a deal that put a border down the irish sea. the prime minister himself went to the dup conference not long ago and said the same thing to them. he has now agreed a deal which puts a border down the irish sea. so can the prime

minister tell this house, why on earth anyone in the country, let alone anyone in this place will ever believe a reassurance that he ever gives, ever again? i am afraid, mr speaker, i am afraid the right honourable lady is wrong, there will be no border down the irish sea, there are already cheques and there will be some customs checks, yes. but of course, what we are trying to do is to avoid, there will be no tariffs, there will be a single, united customs union between all four nations of the uk, as she would expect. that is what we have delivered and we have delivered it, by the way, in defiance of the scepticism and the negativity of the party opposite, who continually said it couldn‘t be done and that it was

absolutely essential for northern ireland to remain in the customs union of the eu. we have solved the problem and we have taken northern ireland out. damian green. mr speaker, there are many others who don‘t often feature at the noisy end of the debate, who campaigned for remain but accept the result of the referendum because we are democrats. many have said we will do anything to avoid no deal. does the prime minister agreed with me that today is the day actually to make those words mean something and vote for a deal? can i thank my right honourable friend, who has done much to bring our party and the house together on this matter and i couldn‘t agree with him more fervently. this is the day for everybody to put aside their differences and get this thing done. our voters, the country are looking at us, they expect us to deliver it,

let‘s do it today. at us, they expect us to deliver it, let's do it today. the democratic consent process doesn‘t remove the border down the irish see, it simply removes the risk from determining the future border from westmont to stormont. so why does he think the deal will accord with the consensus built into the good friday agreement? mr speaker, the deal is in perfect conformity with the good friday agreement and it is open to the people of northern ireland to look at it if they so choose. was it not the leader of the opposition write that on the 22nd of february, 2016, when he said we welcome the fa ct 2016, when he said we welcome the fact that the hands of the people will now decide whether we remain in the european union or not? did they

not come to a conclusion on that? he was right then, shouldn‘t we now carry out that instruction? mr speaker, i do think the better angels of the right honourable gentleman‘s nature may still agree with that position but my impression is, he has been in some way captured by those who now wish, and is held hostage, by those who now wish to convert the labour party into the party of roque, deva, delay, a second referendum, more uncertainty for businesses for years to come. -- revoke. the prime minister asks us with passionate words to vote for his deal with our hearts. but my head cannot get round the fact that we are being asked to accept his words interesting ignorance of their full implications. my heart tells me the people of wales will never be

well served by his government. we are only ever an afterthought to this prime minister. mr speaker, he has refused to share the impact assessments and he only revealed this 535 page legal text today for us this 535 page legal text today for us to comprehend. how could plaid cymru ever support his billionaire‘s brexit? mr speaker, it seems to me that the right honourable lady may have conceived to have made up her mind about the 535 pages, before she has finished reading the text. but what she and i both know is that wales voted to leave and i think she should respect that. 12 minutes into

his statement the prime minister spoke of the importance of this place in future negotiations. can he reassure me therefore, today sees the end of the campaign to portray it as parliament against the people and today we accept it is parliament working on behalf of people?” and today we accept it is parliament working on behalf of people? i thank my right honourable friend for her point and my right honourable friend for her pointandi my right honourable friend for her point and i think she is absolutely right, this is the moment for parliament and people to come together and get this thing done. thank you, mr speaker. the prime minister has said very clearly, he wa nts to minister has said very clearly, he wants to see a free trade deal by the end of 2020 for the whole of the united kingdom. will the prime minister then tell us very clearly, that when that day comes, the protocol on northern ireland will be automatically changed and northern ireland will then be part of a folly, free trade deal with everything the same as the rest of the united kingdom? -- folly. mr

speaker, as the right honourable lady knows, what happens is the protocol, the current arrangements that we have for northern ireland, the arrangements envisaged in this deal laps automatically and the default position is full alignment with the uk in every respect. unless the people of northern ireland decide by a majority vote, to remain in alignment. that is always open to them. it is for a very small range of policy and from the beginning, as i have explained to the house, northern ireland will not only be able to take part in free trade deals, but northern ireland will have many of the advantages and attractions are brexit, in the sense that we can regulate differently and better for financial services, freeport, for instance in belfast. and i see, as is their customary

way, my distinguished friends in the democratic unionist party, accepting this good news. there are many, many advantages to be had and yes, on her point, there is the prospect of a free trade agreement between us and the eu under which these arrangements would eventually be superseded. because, because we would enter into free trade, as the right honourable gentlemen of the house indicated. will my right honourable friend give a commitment in law in necessary that workers‘ rights in this country will never be inferior to those of the european union? mr speaker, yes i certainly

can. mr speaker, honourable members are obviously going to be promised everything today by the prime minister. they should take it with a pinch of salt. i should tell the prime minister, it speaks volumes that he and the chancellor have refused to publish a fresh, economic impact assessment of his proposal today, but i think the chancellor has said well, one was produced last year, november 2018 by his predecessor, where the basis on an average free—trade agreement, it would see the british economy lagged by 5% of gdp. can he at least give us by 5% of gdp. can he at least give us the courtesy at the dispatch box now, by saying that model, the average free—trade agreement, down by 5%, is the expectation we could have of his plan? no, mr speaker, it certainly is not. chris grayling. my

right honourable friend will rememberfrom the right honourable friend will remember from the referendum the strength of feeling that he and i experienced in some of our most deprived communities about brexit. could he gently explained to the leader of the opposition, the sense of betrayal we have felt in those communities if we do not now deliver brexit? order! mr speaker, my right honourable friend is completely correct in what he says. it is a feeling of well known to members on the other side of the house and well known on our benches as well. the people of this country, where ever they come from our coming together now ina they come from our coming together now in a desire to get brexit done. i hope this house will today reflect that well. at present, the united kingdom consists of england, wales,

northern ireland and scotland. in both northern ireland and scotland, there is no mandate for brexit. the deal we are being asked to vote for today gives northern ireland a deal which keeps it close to the single market and the customs union, subject to its consent. can he explain to me and my constituents, in what way it strengthens the union of the united kingdom for scotland alone to have foisted upon it, are brexit it did not vote for? mr speaker, i am afraid that is confusion here, scotland, the whole of the uk is coming out of the customs union. there are particular arrangements that are being put in place to avoid a hard border in northern ireland, which i think is an objective the whole house supports. as for the people of scotland, they had a referendum, as she knows full well, in 2014. they voted very su bsta ntially she knows full well, in 2014. they voted very substantially to remain

in the united kingdom. they were told it was a once in a generation decision and i see no reason to betray that promise that was made to them then. the prime minister, i think, has said he now wants to speakfor the think, has said he now wants to speak for the 52% and the 48%, but does he recognise that the rhetoric and the actions and the way this government has approached brexit achieves the exact opposite of that actually? does he also recognise that dismissing concerns over communities of my own, is no way to bring even england back together and dismissing concerns of other nations within the united kingdom is also no way to bring the uk and britain back together either? mr speaker, i certainly didn‘t mean to dismiss anybody‘s concerns, let alone her

own. i recognise, as i said in my opening statement, this is an issue that has aroused deep feeling across the country on both sides. it is my strong belief that the way forward for this country now is to deliver brexit, get it done and move our country forward. because that is the way, i believe that people can honestly and passionately express their pro—european views in a new deep and special partnership of the kind that the both of us campaigned for. 40 years ago, i heard a conservative leader, who had, although i disagreed with much she believed in, but! although i disagreed with much she believed in, but i believed in her loyalty a nd believed in, but i believed in her loyalty and i trusted her and she brought the nation together with a great speech. i didn‘t hear that this morning. what i heard was a man, who leads this country, but

people don‘t trust. he keeps saying, "trust". who will trust the british people? will he agree with me we should have a referendum so people canjudge this should have a referendum so people can judge this deal for what it is and then we can have a general election after that? mr speaker, the best way to show our trust in the people is to repay their trust in us by honouring their mandate and delivering on the verdict of the people and that is what we should do today and i hope very much the honourable gentleman willjoin us in the lobby tonight. will my right honourable friend reassure the fishermen in my constituency that he will put right the wrong heaped on them over 40 yea rs the wrong heaped on them over 40 years ago and they will get a better share of the fish from uk waters? mr

speaker, they certainly shout and i congratulate and thank my honourable friend for everything she does to stick up for uk fishing. fishing has a glorious feature in this country, in the west country and in scotland as well. if only this house will do the right thing and allow us to come out on october the 31st. the honourable member for slough thinks nodding at me vigorously to the extent that she constitute a bow is a way of being called but at the honourable gentleman may have his opportunity in due course. first of all i want to hear paralysed lucas. how can this house have any confidence in the claims of the prime minister that he does not want lower standards when his own deal precisely moves the so—called level playing field from the binding

withdrawal agreement into the non—binding political declaration? —— caroline lucas. this deal takes a wrecking ball to social and environmental standards? the people can see this is a profoundly bad deal. i am afraid the right honourable lady has totally misled and misunderstood the provisions of the agreement. then it is stated plainly in the political declaration that we will maintain the highest possible standards and it is up to this has to do so. it is the well of this has to do so. it is the well of this house and aware of this government to have even higher standards. this government has banned microbeads, is cracking down on plastics and is leading the world and going for zero carbon by 2015. we are leaders in animal and welfare protection and we will continue to

be so outside the eu. time to uncork the gauk. the prime minister has shown flexibility to reach a deal, for which he deserves credit. unless we reach a free trade agreement in the next stage of negotiations there isa the next stage of negotiations there is a risk that great britain will leave the implementation period without a deal with the european union. and the prime minister commit today to show the same determination and flexibility to ensure that we will reach a deep and special partnership through f free trade agreement with the european union before we allow the implementation period to come to an end? my right honourable friend makes an excellent

point, and this is the substantive point, and this is the substantive point i was discussing with european union friends in the last couple of days. that is where they want to go now. they are interested in the timetable and interested in whether 14 months is enough. i think it is enough. i think we can do it in 14 months. i will tell you why. the right honourable lady asked, she may not already know we are already imperfect regulatory alignment with the european union, you may have escaped we already have a zero tariff and a zero quota arrangements with the eu. we had a fantastic opportunity to do a free trade deal. yes, 14 months is a blistering pace but it can get it done. may ijust remind doubters and sceptics who said it was impossible to reopen the bridge all agreement? they said we would never get rid of the backstop and they said we would never get a

deal. mr speaker, there is a very good deal on the table here today andi good deal on the table here today and i hope they vote for it. patients rewarded. mr speaker, while addressing the dup conference, the prime minister promised ever be nobody dan day i receive, not a customs one, a regulatory one or any other sort. he promised the same thing to conservative colleagues in pursuit of power to becomejungle king. with the prime minister like to ta ke king. with the prime minister like to take this opportunity to formally apologise to the dup and the good people of northern ireland for having seldom down the river and having seldom down the river and having broken yet another promise? —— sold then down the river. i am grateful to the right honourable gentleman. in all candour and humility, you —— as he misrepresents

the deal, preserving northern ireland in the uk customs territory, does not create a border in the irish sea and allows us together as a single united kingdom to do free trade deals around the world. his constituents would want him to support this deal and get brexit done tonight, get brexit down on october the 31st. -- done. i wholeheartedly commend my right honourable friend for abolishing the anti—democratic backstop and on that basis i will be supporting this deal today, having opposed the previous deal. can i suggest this to him? given that i most of us in this place want a fair and good trade deal, and preferred that to know deal, and preferred that to know deal, does he accept that by

abolishing the anti—democratic backstop abolishing the anti—democratic ba cksto p we abolishing the anti—democratic backstop we actually collect not only can make a good and fair trade deal more likely that we almost guarantee it given the common position we start from and our common interests with the eu? my right honourable friend is spot—on, mr speaker. he is right that both sides have a strong incentive to do a very, very good, best in class free trade deal by the end of next year. that is our ambition and what we are going to achieve. the prime minister‘s brexit secretary was on television this morning. he confirmed that no economic analysis of the deal has been done. i asked the house to let that sink in. no economic analysis has been done and we are expected to vote on it today. how does the prime minister anticipate that members on all side

of the house in good faith on a deal that will impact the country in decades to come will be expected to vote on such a thing today? mr speaker, i respectfully point out to the honourable lady that the deal has been welcomed by a broad range of opinion including the governor of the bank of england and indeed the cbi. the choice i had today is between this deal, which i believe is very good for this country, both economically and politically, and no deal. that is what she has to decide between. article 126 of the withdrawal agreement says the transition period ends on the 31st of december 2020 but if you articles later, 132, it says it can be extended for a further two years. if it was extended we would still be

effectively in the european union six and a half years after the referendum. could the prime minister say that while he is prime minister, he would not consider extending past that 31st of december 2020? my honourable friend chose his customary sagacity and grip on detail, he is absolutely right about article 126 but that article provides for the uk and the eu to decide the matter by a joint committee and the uk would therefore have discretion of the tail in that matter. i can tell him now, i certainly would not want to extend beyond the end of next year, nor do i see any reason for delay, as indeed nor do i see any reason or excuse for delay beyond october the 3ist. excuse for delay beyond october the 31st. there is a philosophical problem at the core of the prime

minister‘s argument today. he is promising his colleagues, particularly his most ardent brexit supporting colleagues, that the proposals before us offer a pathway to the deregulated future on which they have always been. and, at the same time, he is saying to labour collea g u es same time, he is saying to labour colleagues that he now has a new—found love for all the european workers‘ rights that he built a journalistic career slapping off in the strongest way possible. both of these things cannot be true. which one is? mr speaker, he is writing what he says because the first few things he said were wholly incorrect. there will be a high standard maintained, the very highest standards maintained, for

workers‘ rights and environmental protection. if he is not content with that, it is open to him as a member of this has come as i had said bye to take part in a setting of the mandate for the future partnership until engagement has all parliamentarians are invited to engage them in drawing up the terms of our future partnership and i engage them in drawing up the terms of ourfuture partnership and i hope he takes up that offer. as i understand it, the 39 billion for an fta is based on eu alignment. and my right honourable friend confirm and reassure me that will not affect and restrict uk tax, foreign or defence policies? i can certainly give my honourable friend that assurance. thank you very much indeed, mr speaker. the prime minister will be well aware of the considerable anxiety and indeed anger caused to

the unionist community in northern ireland since the publication of his brexit deal. i would like the prime minister to take this opportunity, since he has not bothered until now to reach out and reassure the unionist community. i would like him to ta ke unionist community. i would like him to take this opportunity publicly to reassure the people in northern ireland that there is nothing in his deal which undermines the constitutional status of northern ireland, has guaranteed by the belfast good friday agreement and the consent principle. i pay tribute to the irish prime minister, who has made a very solemn explanation and commitment about his commitment to the constitutional status of northern ireland. as a unionist man eating here a british prime minister making that commitment to the unionist community. i am grateful to

the right honourable lady and i wish to reassure her that i make an absolute commitment to the constitutional status of northern ireland, which is intact. it may be that she has not seen in a statement from lord trimble, who said of the change in the agreement that we have secured, whilst previously the people of northern ireland would have an agreement imposed on them, now we have a mechanism for the consent of the people of northern ireland and that is fully in accordance with the good friday agreement. thank you. my right honourable friend is right to characterise the political participation of the uk in the eu, too often as uncertain. it is one of the great regrets of my time here that what he says is true and we will never know anyway what the eu might have looked like had the united kingdom been a full partner.

ifa united kingdom been a full partner. if a new relationship with us outside the eu, for which i am voting today, is to be a success, not only for trade negotiations but diplomatic links, does he agree with me as they read newspapers and they know what he says that the relentless, persistent and two of the 1940s anti—eu rhetoric must come to an end, no ifs, no buts? well, i think he is absolutely right and that it think he is absolutely right and thatitis think he is absolutely right and that it is time this country moved on. i may say that the best way that he can show his support tonight for this deal would be gently to suggest to his right honourable friend, the memberfor west dorset, to his right honourable friend, the member for west dorset, that we remove the amendment currently standing in his name because that is an impediment to such a verdict

tonight. studio: happened we are going to go back to the comments in a moment. just to sum up what has happened since my 30 am this morning when the comments started, the speaker has crucially selected two amendments, then one of them very controversial. the left—wing amendment called for an delay to the process. just in terms of what has happened since then, borisjohnson made the case for his deal. jeremy corbyn but the opposition plasma case against it and we have had a number of questions, quite a few folks here and the fact the government does not publish an economic assessment of this deal. luciana berger saying how can anyone be expected to decide how

to vote on this day when we do not know how it is going to affect living standards of all the buzz, the economy. chris leslie is saying the economy. chris leslie is saying the last economic assessment published by the government on the average free trade deal predicted a 596 average free trade deal predicted a 5% cut to gdp. angela eagle making the point on the northern irish question that borisjohnson had previously said in the past he would never want to see a border down the irish sea. that is effectively what he has done, she said and how could anyone trust what he would say in the future? a point about northern ireland very controversial. david gauke, a conservative, an ex conservative announces he will support the deal but is wanting to support the deal but is wanting to support left—wing alongside it. he said the government must promise there will be no deal exit before there will be no deal exit before the implementation period. boris johnson saying very much that he wa nted johnson saying very much that he wanted to get the deal through and despite the short time frame until

the end of 2020, that was a government‘s aim. our assistant political editor in the houses of parliament. how would you assess what we have had so far today? the tone from boris johnson what we have had so far today? the tone from borisjohnson was interesting. a much more conciliatory tone and some of his performances, trying to reach out to those wavering labour mps who could be critical if we actually get to a vote on his deal. eh? about that. saying the nhs is not going to be on the table in any future trade talk. saying no one was pushing for a lowering of high environmental standards. trying to pick off a few labour mps who standards. trying to pick off a few labourmps who might standards. trying to pick off a few labour mps who might give him enough numbers to possibly get this over the line. it brought the sharpest question from... he said, hang on a second, you are telling us you are in favour of workers‘ rights. you

can‘t have it both ways. the tone was interesting from borisjohnson. the question is, will we get to that vote on the government‘s motion? because all the indications are that if sir oliver letwin‘s amendment is carried, which would basically withhold approval from this deal until the legislation to implement it had been passed, forcing a delay ofa it had been passed, forcing a delay of a few weeks, all the signs are that the government will pack up their bags, send their mps home and say, forget it. it is not a meaningful vote. we will think again. in other words, there is a very real danger that today will not bea very real danger that today will not be a moment of clarity but it will be a moment of clarity but it will bea be a moment of clarity but it will be a moment of clarity but it will be a moment of clarity but it will be a moment of confusion and delay. so really almost anything could happen in the next hour or so. let‘s try and unpick some of that with steve baker, the head of the arg group brexiteers. how do you see this going? the first thing is we have decided it is in the national

interest to compromise on the undoubted flaws in the withdrawal agreement in order to get to a very positive future state. if everything in that withdrawal agreement is negotiated well and competently, i will be doing cartwheels ofjoy that we have delivered that deep and broad partnership with the eu which i think broad partnership with the eu which ithink can broad partnership with the eu which i think can reunite the country. let‘s talk the parliamentary tactics because it does seem to be taking all sorts of bizarre twists and turns. what happens if the government does say to tory mps, supposing the left—wing amendment is passed, go home. iwould supposing the left—wing amendment is passed, go home. i would advise my colleagues to vote with the government. we have given colleagues three pieces of advice. vote for the deal, but for the three pieces of advice. vote for the deal, but forthe implementing legislation on the way to the end provided it is not spoiled, and vote with the government to give the prime minister maximum opportunity to deliver for the country. as eurosceptics we will vote with boris johnson. what others will do, i fear because if they pass this lettering amendment to the public, who are absolutely sick of brexit, willjust get a bunch of circus clowns running

around giving the opportunity to vote for a deal instead voting for dithering delay out of what? fear? it would be ludicrous. would it be ludicrous because people like oliver letwi n ludicrous because people like oliver letwin and some of the other tory rebels, they back a deal. they a lwa ys rebels, they back a deal. they always voted for a deal. they say, we wa nt always voted for a deal. they say, we want to be sure that the legislation is going to get through and people like you don‘t pull the plug and therefore it results in a no deal. they want to get this through. i have always wanted a deal of their character the eu offered us la st of their character the eu offered us last year. this deal that boris has got is consistent with what they offered us last year. i want to aim for the landing ground with all the result that we can muster. i have been sent to oliver letwin and others is a look at what i have done over the past three to four years when it has been myjob to organise colleagues. what we have said we would do we have done. sometimes we have done it with ruthless resolve and beating people, democratically, but we have always done what we said. we have repeatedly said to

colleagues, if we vote for the deal, when we vote for the deal we will also commit to voting for all the implementing legislation that fulfils the prime minister's policy but if they wreck it with a customs union or second referendum on removing, we will have to see where we land. no deal is back on the table. if a's amendment passes in the uk looks totally incompetent to deliver what was actually a big change from the eu. they opened their withdrawal agreement, completely change the back stop. from the eu's point of view having met multiple ambassadors who will be throwing their hands in the air and wondering what they can do. they might lead to us being thrown out of the eu -- might lead to us being thrown out of the eu —— by the eu. i do not want that. i prefer to deliver for my

constituents in the nation a smooth exit through this deal. thanks very much for your time. stakes are hugely high, as you can see. maybe there will be a delay, may be no deal comes back into the fray. may be the eu say, forget it, leave us bay. huge uncertainty looms. just to pick you up again on left wing, went do we expect a vote and that and how are the government then not to have the vote if later if lettering passes? i wish i could give you clear a nswers passes? i wish i could give you clear answers but i can‘t because pa rt clear answers but i can‘t because part of the lettering amendment removes part of the lettering amendment re m oves a ny part of the lettering amendment removes any cut—off point for votes. so we could go well into the afternoon. i noted rather ominously the prime minister in his statement talked about vote this evening! so brace yourself, it really could go on for some considerable time. if, as we expect, n is passed and the government says, that is it, we are out of here, tory mps, go home. i

assume what will happen then is that mrjohnson will be obliged to write that letter by 11 o‘clock tonight to the eu saying, i have not got my deal because he won‘t have got a steal, please give me an extension. but he will do nothing else. we will not go to brussels, pick up the phone, make no effort to negotiate a deal in the hope that eu leaders will say, can we really give britain an extension which the government doesn‘t one? added to which, we know a number of eu leaders are increasingly exasperated. will they think this is ridiculous? all questions we do not know the answer to, iam questions we do not know the answer to, i am afraid. ok, norman, we will be back to you in the coming moments and hours. thank you very much. we will take you back into the house of commons because the prime minister is still addressing mps. he is taking questions from all sides. he

is has just been taking questions from nigel evans, the conservative pro—brexiteer. boris johnson back from nigel evans, the conservative pro—brexiteer. borisjohnson back in the house of commons. let‘s take you back to the key debate on the brexit deal. a minister used the phrase, european france over and over again ina european france over and over again in a statement this morning. we in this house know that the prime minister likes to treat his friends with great generosity. bearing that in mind, will the prime minister distanced himself from the comments of his security minister last week who said that our european friends in this country could face deportation if they do not get settled status byte next year? the honourable lady raises her very important point and perhaps i should have said more about it in my opening remarks because i do think one of the things this government has done well over the last few

yea rs, has done well over the last few yea rs , we has done well over the last few yea rs, we are has done well over the last few years, we are finally giving the £3.4 million assurances that we need and the settled status scheme is working extremely well. it is vital that all eu citizens living in our country have the reassurances that they need and they say it is also vital, a point! they need and they say it is also vital, a point i made to our collea g u es vital, a point i made to our colleagues in brussels, it is also vital that there should be symmetry. it is at the moment there is not perfect symmetry and it is very important that as we come out we give our eu nationals the treatment they deserve, that that is reciprocated on the other side of the channel. by and large it is but there is some progress to be made. with the prime minister confirm what business has been telling us for many months now that there is a enormous pent investment rating to be released into the uk economy when the fog and lack of clarity at this stage of brexit is lifted? and willie also confirmed the very last

thing business wants to see from the proceedings of the day in this house of commons is to further delay, further fogginess and further confusion? my honourable friend is com pletely confusion? my honourable friend is completely right and i do think the whole business world has been holding its breath, awaiting for us to get this done. there is massive confidence and excitement in this country about its future and they wa nt to country about its future and they want to invest. to give them an opportunity to do this in the course of the next few weeks and months. mighti of the next few weeks and months. might i agree with the right honourable gentleman‘s sentiments, from ashford, and would do not agree that one of the confusions we are facing in the house and also in the country is that some, not all, of those who wish to remain often appear in brexit clothing? and that today there is a motion on the order paperfor today there is a motion on the order paper for those of us who want to deliver on the promise in the referendum and there is only one vote necessary? i think right

honourable gentleman has spoken with his customary honesty and insight in this matter and i think that it would be a good thing if this house had an ability to have what was promised to the house in the country and that is to have a meaningful vote tonight. my fear is that the boat we have will not prove to be meaningful and i think, boat we have will not prove to be meaningfuland i think, given boat we have will not prove to be meaningful and i think, given the solemnity of the occasion, that would be a great pity. in the name of equality... the union is of massive importance to many in this house. when my right honourable friend commit to mitigate, to subsidise the costs of any new arrangements for customs within northern ireland ?

arrangements for customs within northern ireland? yes, mr speaker, not only that but if he studied he agreement he will see that it is open to the uk authorities to give support of any kind where necessary to alleviate any impact that there may be from the arrangements that we will put in place, whatever the implications may be. the worries of manufacturers about new rules and other red tape this day would impose upon them and their fears that reassu ra nces upon them and their fears that reassurances in the deal negotiated by his predecessor had been dropped from his deal? the reason i'm not worried about them is because there is no new reels of origins, checks, and this is a deal i would hope they would get behind answer but because it represents stability and certainty for business.”

it represents stability and certainty for business. i think it is very important there are other voices from scotland that are asking... the federation of small businesses, the scottish chambers of commerce, the scottish chambers of commerce, the scotch whisky association all believe this is best for industry, the economy and jobs. scottish nationalists will once again vote for a no till brexit. mr speaker, there speaks the true voice of scotla nd there speaks the true voice of scotland and she is perfectly correct. i venture to say that the constituents of the party opposite, the snp, overwhelmingly tonight want that party, even that party, to get brexit done and move this country on. i bet they do, mr speaker. the

prime minister has said that the no border down the irish sea, yet every good imported from gb into northern ireland will be subject to customs declarations, subject to checks and ta riffs have to declarations, subject to checks and tariffs have to be paid until you can tariffs have to be paid until you ca n prove tariffs have to be paid until you can prove where those goods are going to. we accept that he may have avoided a border between the northern island and republic but he has put a economic border between the country to which he belongs and the country to which he belongs and the economy on which we depend? this will do a great on the contrary, mr speaker. this protects northern ireland by extracting northern ireland whole and entire front of the eu customs union, allows them tojoin and entire front of the eu customs union, allows them to join the whole of the uk in setting our own tariffs and insofar as there may be checks

ata and insofar as there may be checks at a few places in north island, physical checks would only involve 196 physical checks would only involve 1% of the goods coming in. and if thatis 1% of the goods coming in. and if that is too much of a burden, then it is open to the people of northern ireland by majority to decide that they no longer to participate in those arrangements. it is being done by consent. it is a very, very ingenious scheme that gets northern ireland out of the customs union and allows the holder of the uk to do free—trade together with minimum, minimum bureaucracy. mr speaker, the british people are watching this place very carefully and history is recording what we say. with a clear majority message from my constituents is that they want the brexit they voted for delivered and in this deal does that. can i have

an assurance from the prime minister that we will not only maintain, but enhance our environmental and animal welfare standards? i can indeed give that assurance and i can tell my honourable friend who campaigned to leave the eu for these reasons that we will have higher standards for protection for animal where five, and the environment. north wales is and the environment. north wales is a major artery to the irish republic through northern ireland by road and boat. given that goods will be... when and where are going to be the border checks and the tariffs? there are no tariffs on goods. he knows full well there are not any. we all

know that the people of our country are desperate to end this uncertainty, but we often forget that the people of the other 2720 hm countries are also desperate to end the uncertainty. i wear prime minister has needed to get the consent from all 27 countries. does he agree that if this house fails to back this deal today or kicks the can down the road again, we will create more uncertainty and not less ? create more uncertainty and not less? my honourable friend is exactly right. the choice is very clear for this house and for the country. it is really this deal or a no—deal brexit. i do not think by any no—deal brexit. i do not think by

a ny stretch no—deal brexit. i do not think by any stretch of the imagination it can be right for the uk to delay beyond the october 31 when that will beyond the october 31 when that will be expensive, pointless and a since. and will achieve nothing at all. evidence matters. how can you possibly assure our constituents that this is a good deal if the prime minister has not carried out an economic impact assessment of what it will cost them? and if he has done that, why on earth are we not able to see it as we debate this today? i am gratefulto not able to see it as we debate this today? i am grateful to the right honourable lady, but i would direct her to the answers i have already given. many business groups have come out in support of this deal because it gives certainty and stability and allows the country to move on as my right honourable friend has just

move on as my right honourable friend hasjust said. it move on as my right honourable friend has just said. it will unleash a great deal of investment. cani unleash a great deal of investment. can i think the prime ministerfor his statement and his tone. he and i have had some robust conversations and he has done what he promised me to do, which was seek a brexit deal and bring it back. i was very pleased to hear that there are a lot of people we need to have... when he agree that the way to do that is with the dealer he has proposed which is worthy of our support? the support of him needs a great deal to me. we did have long conversations about this. i did my best to convince him that i was earnest in seeking a deal. i truly was and i am very pleased with the result. i am delighted that he feels able to

support it. getting back to the key point, it gives people who love europe and the broadest possible way to move forward and work with us to develop a new partnership. that if the opportunity. everything else is status and division. it was said yesterday i am doing my best to persuade colleagues who likely voted three times against the last prime minister‘s deal to look at this in a favourable light provided that we can get the insurance and i have been given it so far that if our trade talks fail we will leave on no deal turns. mr speaker, have trade talks fail we will leave on no dealturns. mr speaker, have members of the prime minister‘s cabinet given those assurances and if indeed no deal is not being ruled out by

supporting the prime minister today, why won‘t he tell the country the truth? my right honourable friend has made it very clearjust know if she was listening, that he will work for a great new free—trade agreement. may respectfully say to her as i say to all of the members that if they wish to avoid a no—deal brexit, the single best thing we could all do is vote for this deal tonight. thank you, mr speaker. i strongly support the deal, but is it not the case that whatever government we will be able in this pa rt government we will be able in this part meant to strengthen workers‘ rights without recourse to external... the billions of pounds that we will safe from leaving the eu we will be able to spend on public services? he is completely

right. we will be able to get on with investing in hospitals in his area. yes of course it is open to this house and the country to strengthen workers‘ rights beyond the standards in the eu, but as i said to that right honourable lady who spoke a moment ago, every new regulation no directive that comes from brussels in this matter will be able to be scrutinised by this house and we will be able to decide whether or not it is right to implement it in the uk. it seems to me that you cannot say fairer than that. we can go further, but we can also track them if we choose. following the earlier question, the prime minister will know there is a great deal of anxiety in the business community that faces a cliff edge at the end of next year.

can you reiterate what seemed to be his assurance that the transition will be extended until his free—trade agreement has been completed? if he is worried about a cliff edge and i am not as worried as he is, the best thing he can do andi as he is, the best thing he can do and i am looking at him carefully to see if he has this in his heart, is to vote for this deal tonight. he says he is opposed to a no—deal brexit, this is the way to avoid it. lam brexit, this is the way to avoid it. i am sorry to disappoint the remaining members, but having now called no fewer than 55 backbenchers, ijudge called no fewer than 55 backbenchers, i judge that called no fewer than 55 backbenchers, ijudge that it is time to proceed to the debate on the motions. we come now to motion numberone motions. we come now to motion number one with which we will debate asi

number one with which we will debate as i indicated earlier. motion numbertwo, i remind as i indicated earlier. motion number two, i remind the as i indicated earlier. motion numbertwo, i remind the house that i have selected amendment a in the name of the right honourable gentleman for west dorset. to move the motion, i callthe gentleman for west dorset. to move the motion, i call the secretary of state for exiting the european union. thank you. i move the motion in the name of the prime minister. today is the time for this house to come together and move forward. someone who previously did that and who many members of the house will still remember was the former secretary of state for northern ireland. her biography... her biography was called momentum. in the days

before... after 1000 213 days and frequent debates in the chamber... order. i understand that passions are inflamed, but i do appeal to colleagues to weigh their words and to try to preserve the principle of political inference. secretary of state. thank you. this. of bringing together is what i was seeking today. cheering after frequent debates it is time for this has to move forward. another pivotal figure in for this has to move forward. another pivotalfigure in bringing different views together was lord trimble who won the nobel peace prize for his contribution to the

good friday agreement. he has made clear his support for this deal. confirming it is fully in accordance with the spirits of that agreement. the people of northern ireland will be granted consent over their future asa be granted consent over their future as a result of the deal the prime minister has negotiated. mr speaker, this deal also delivers on the referendum in a way that protects all parts of our union. against those who would seek to use division and delay to break it up, in particular, on the benches of the snp. as such, it is a vote that honour is not one, but two referendums in protecting our democratic vote, but also our united kingdom. this house called for a meaningful vote. yet today sam who championed that are now suggesting

it should delay longer still. i respect the intention of my right honourable friend a member of dorset who has supported the vote three times and has indicated his support today. but his amendment would render today‘s vote meaningless. it would cause further delay when our constituents and businesses want an end to uncertainty. mr speaker, the public will be appalled by pointless further delay. we need to get brexit done by the 31st of october so the country can move forward and i asked my right honourable friend and that spirited withdraw his amendment. i give way. very grateful to the secretary of state and he pointed out that we have voted previously against a brexit deal including the

prime minister who voted twice against a brexit deal after the referendum. why does the government not have the courage to allow the same privilege to the members of this country to make their judgement? if he really thought that, he would support an election and would let the people to have their say, but had declined to do so. politicians do not pick and choose which votes they adhere to and that we respect the biggest vote in our country‘s history. and that we respect the biggest vote in our country's history. i'm grateful for giving way. he said the public do not want to lay. yesterday i was public do not want to lay. yesterday iwas in public do not want to lay. yesterday i was in my constituency where a hundred people face hundred percent of the people said they wanted brexit delivered and steal delivers. i applaud them for getting this done. i very much agree with my honourable friend who speaks, notjust for his

country and constituents, but for those up and down the country and indeed businesses up and down the country who indeed want to see exit happen. i'm gratefulfor country who indeed want to see exit happen. i'm grateful for giving way. cani happen. i'm grateful for giving way. can ijust happen. i'm grateful for giving way. can i just say, happen. i'm grateful for giving way. can ijust say, does he agree that for those who call for a second referendum, having denied the result of the first referendum, how can the british people ever trust us to then follow through on a second referendum? i agree with my right above trend and indeed some of those voices distressed two referendums andi voices distressed two referendums and i want a third referendum on which to campaign. he will know that many of us have long campaigned to leave the european union. will he tell me now why there is not in this agreement the opportunity for the people of northern ireland to opt in

and consented to what has been decided? that would have made a crucial difference to how people in northern ireland on the prounion side who feel genuinely, like myself, that somehow the united kingdom government is letting down and giving into the british government. the unilateral declaration publish with the documentations on both the withdrawal agreement and the political declaration does indeed allow for a consent mechanism in northern ireland for the assembly. and as a prime minister set out in a statement, it is right when the decision on which we meet today is based on a majority across the united kingdom that the assembly reaches a decision on that basis without one community having power of veto over the other. the secretary of state has followed the

example of the prime minister in quoting david trimble. he is a great leader of the ulster unionist party, he now sits as a tory. i asked the prime minister and i am asking the secretary of state for a clear guarantee that there is nothing in this deal which undermines or wea ke ns this deal which undermines or weakens the constitutional status of northern ireland as guaranteed in the belfast good friday agreement and the consent principle, do not quote lord trimble to me question give mea quote lord trimble to me question give me a clear commitment!” quote lord trimble to me question give me a clear commitment! i refer the honourable lady to the letter that the prime minister set out to president young kerr set out. the first commitment in that letter was the absolute commitment to the belfast good friday agreement. that isa belfast good friday agreement. that is a commitment that we share, not just with the united kingdom, but also with our friends in the irish government as well and that is why

we have shown flexibility in the arrangements. some of those arrangements. some of those arrangements which have caused difficulty to some colleagues in the house in orderfor us difficulty to some colleagues in the house in order for us to address the concerns that were particularly in the nationalist community around what impact they may be on the belfast good friday agreement.” give way. i‘m very grateful for giving way. on the opt in point that the honourable lady from vauxhall referred to, that was in the letter that the prime minister sent to jean—claude juncker. it was that the prime minister sent to jean—claudejuncker. it was only just two weeks ago. that‘s where it came from. the prime minister seemed bemused. secondly, it he says it now has to be by majority vote. can we now take it that the policy of the government is to do away... the assembly is going to meet on monday which is good news so that veto no longer applies. i see the prime

minister nodding and i am grateful for that. that is a very big breakthrough for northern ireland. it is also worth clarifying that this is about a reserve matter which applies to our international agreement has united kingdom and not the powers that sit with the assembly within the good friday agreement. and that is why there wasn‘t a willingness to give one community a power of veto over the other. it is simply not true to say that agriculture and manufactured goods and so on our reserved matters. these are matters devolved to the northern ireland assembly. this is just not correct. please do not use that argument. and this was recognised by the time a letter that he sent to jean—claude juncker himself only a few weeks ago. the difficulty with that argument with great respect, and i very much do respect the concerns of the right

honourable gentleman, is that a few weeks ago. the difficulty with that argument with great respect, and i very much do respect the concerns of the right honourable gentleman, is out further within the united declaration that if stormont isn‘t sitting as to how that will be addressed. i'm grateful to sitting as to how that will be addressed. i'm gratefulto my sitting as to how that will be addressed. i'm grateful to my right honourable friend. when a few weeks ago i voted for the withdrawal act, it was with the clear intention of ensuring that maximum effort was committed to the negotiations in order to secure a deal to prevent the risk of no deal. i am grateful to the prime minister and to my right honourable friend for having succeeded in that objective which did not at the time seem to gather favour. having referred to the good

intentions of my right honourable friend in moving his amendment today, which i will not vote for and vote against, could you give some reassurance to the house as to why he believes that is not necessary if we are to fulfil the terms of the deal and the efforts that have been made in the last few weeks?” deal and the efforts that have been made in the last few weeks? i will very shortly come onto that precise point although perhaps legislation should not be called... i am grateful to my right honourable friend. i will make some progress and then take some further interventions. this is a deal that the prime minister was told was impossible. we were told that the withdrawal agreement could not be changed and indeed this shadow brexit secretary used to hold up the text to say that not a word of the withdrawal agreement had been changed. we were told the backstop could not be removed. it was the all

weather, all life insurance on which the european union relied. and we we re the european union relied. and we were told that there was insufficient time for a new deal. and indeed the negotiation was a sham. and mr speaker, sometimes that was just from voices in our own side. the real significance of the prime minister‘s achievement is at the people of northern ireland will have a vote which will give them the consent over the future arrangements and there will no longer be any european veto on what those future arrangements will be. just as important, this deal changes the dynamic of the future negotiation. before, many members of this house we re before, many members of this house were concerned that the backstop would be used as leverage with the eu holding the prospect of us being permanently stuck in its orbit against our will. indeed,

permanently stuck in its orbit against ourwill. indeed, many members of this house spoke about it being easier to have the the eu than to leave the backstop itself. with this new deal, because of the need of northern ireland‘s consent over its future, the dynamic of the future relationship will change because it will be the eu‘s interest which will be aligned with ours in reaching a future relationship which benefits both sides.” reaching a future relationship which benefits both sides. i am grateful to the secretary of state for giving way. in my constituency, 50 52% voted to lead, 48 voted to remain. but when we come onto the sheer weight of legislation to put into force the referendum result might we not only keep faith with the 52% that we are leaving but also remember that we have experienced today in the house that 48% in my

constituency do not wish to leave?” very much respect that point from the right honourable gentleman. he has always been someone who was reached out to build consensus. it is important to address those concerns that he and other members across this house have raised in terms of the balanced approach to the future relationship that we will take. i listen to the prime minister‘s statement and it debate intently minister‘s statement and it debate i nte ntly a ny minister‘s statement and it debate intently a ny tea ms minister‘s statement and it debate intently any teams assurances were given to you to fail there would be intention in phase two to follow the alignment with the eu. even no deal was not put off the table in phase two. it can‘t be both, so which is

it? paragraph 77 says our commitment to high international standards and to high international standards and to those being reciprocal as befits the relationship we reached with the european union and he should really have more confidence in this house that we will set regulation that is world leading, best in class, that reflect the queen‘s speech with its world leading regulation on the environment and that reflects the commitment that many in the house have sought on workers‘ rights whilst also being mindful of course that it whilst also being mindful of course thatitis whilst also being mindful of course that it is this house which went ahead of the eu in terms of paternity rights, ahead of the eu in terms of parental leave. so we can go further than the eu in protecting people‘s right rather than simply match them. and i say to my right honourable friend that it is my assessment that the deal struck by our right honourable friend the

prime minister accords with the good friday agreement. i think it prestige is a new golden age for relationships north, south of the border which is to be welcomed. can i congratulate the government on adopting the stance of consent rather than veto. that reflect modern irish politics today. my honourable friend speaks a great authority on this issue and i know he will have recognised the importance that the whole of the united kingdom will benefit from our future trade deals around the world. with every part of the united kingdom, including northern ireland, leaving, as a pie minister said in a statement, whole and entire. leaving, as a pie minister said in a statement, whole and entirem leaving, as a pie minister said in a statement, whole and entire. it is right we examine the detail in this place and the secretary of state is doing a greatjob in answering the questions but i want to suggest that we need a slightly more optimistic

note. it is my firm belief that now we have got rid of the backstop, we will achieve a fair and good trade deal by december 2020 and we should be focused on that rather than all the minor detail. it is a bright future if we decide to take it today. my honourable friend is right today. my honourable friend is right to talk about the opportunity that brexit a lot for trade deal. we start from a position of greater understanding of the respective economies. a great part is negotiating that and understanding at the start. and we can seize the opportunities that those trade deals around the world and that is why we need to move forward. can i thank the secretary of state for giving way. should the house provide this evening on the amendment in the name

of the member for dorset west, it will have my support this evening, but can i suggest you the secretary of state, there is a way through this brings the contents and he talks about which is where we support the amendment, the government tabled the legislation next week so we can have scrutiny of the detail, we can make meaningful decisions at second and third reading but, crucially, the commitment that i welcome the secretary of state and prime minister made, those of us that have some reservations can see those written into the face of the bill before we make that final crucial decision on how we continue this process ? decision on how we continue this process? i respect the care with which the honourable gentleman has looked at this issue. but his constituents, like many around the country, now want the country to move forward and for us to get this deal done. of course there is a distinction between the meaningful vote today and the further opportunities there will be at second reading of the withdrawal agreement bill and indeed a third

reading in orderfor agreement bill and indeed a third reading in order for assurance to agreement bill and indeed a third reading in orderfor assurance to be provided in line with the statements prime minister has made from the box today. i give way once more and then i will make some progress. secretary of state, this is a crucial point. the point of this new deal is that it offers great britain a fairly ha rd it offers great britain a fairly hard brexit in order to facilitate trade agreements with countries for whom european standards are incompatible because we cannot be a european style economy and a us style economy at the same time. what you are not giving us is an economic assessment to tell us what jobs you are not giving us is an economic assessment to tell us whatjobs and industries will grow in the back of this? were goods and services will be cheaper to compensate for loss of aerospace, automotive, financial services and so much more? the right honourable gentleman should really listen to business leaders who say that this will be a boost to our economy. to the many

business leaders who want to this uncertainty and we cannot simply keep debating the same issues in a house that has said no to everything and refuses to say yes to anything. this debate should be about restoring the independence of our country in accordance to the votes of the referendum. given that in the implementation time, the eu will have massive powers over us, is there something the government can build into the draft legislation that they will not abuse their powers? yes, i am happy to give that reassurance eu. that is that we can commit to doing as we move forward. of course i give way. i am very grateful. he spoke earlier about their not being a pointless delay. i actually agree with him about that. this matter has got to be brought to a conclusion, but he must be aware

that apart from approving it in the generality, we have a duty to look at the detail of this deal in primary legislation and the house is entitled to pass amendments which provided they do not undermine the treaty themselves, are wholly legitimate. difficulty is the impression that the government is giving that by insisting that the benn act be subverted that it has other intentions of taking us out at such a gallop that that scrutiny cannot take place. i wish the government would just listen a little bit because i think there is much more common ground on this than it has ever been prepared to acknowledge instead of which, it continues to give the impression that it just wants continues to give the impression that itjust wants to drive this deal through this house.” that itjust wants to drive this deal through this house. i have a lwa ys deal through this house. i have always had great respect for the legal acumen and seriousness of my

right honourable friend. there is an inconsistency in his case when he talks of wanting to look at legislation in more detail having supported the ben burt legislation that was passed in haste. it would have had the effect of doing the opposite of what it was intended. forcing the prime minister to come back to this house therefore making ano back to this house therefore making a no deal more likely. that cooper legislation is a very good example of where my right honourable and leonard frank did not look at legislation in detail and indeed where it would have had a perverse consequences at odds with his arguments for supporting it at time. there is a further inconsistency in being a champion for section 13.

when the prime minister secures a new deal which he said he could not achieve, to then deny the right for the section 13 to be put to the housein the section 13 to be put to the house in a meaningful way because he no longer wanted to apply on the same rules. jeering. thank you for giving way. this deal has hardly blacked scrutiny given the number of times it has been voted on and debated in this house. albeit we now have... cani this house. albeit we now have... can ijust this house. albeit we now have... can i just point this house. albeit we now have... can ijust point out that this house. albeit we now have... can i just point out that the implementing legislation is simply that. it does not alter the substance of the agreement, it merely implements the agreement into domestic law and we can do that very quickly and amend the bill after

ratification of the agreement if necessary because it is only a piece of domestic implementing legislation. there is no case for delaying that legislation and i am going to vote for the deal today. first, i welcome the support of the right honourable gentleman. i think one issue that we would agree is there has not been a lack of scrutiny on these issues given the frequencies we debate these issues here. it is also worth reminding ourselves as to what the motion is addressing today. it is addressing the withdrawal agreement secured by the withdrawal agreement secured by the prime minister implementing the withdrawl agreement bill is still being —— is still to be debated. that only pertains to the winding down arrangements and not as often

reference the future trade deal which we want to get on and debate. is an odd argument that the main issue that our relationship with europe is being sorted because a circular and endless debate on the same issue. we need to debate today in order to unlock the agreement they‘ll. in order to unlock the agreement they'll. thank you for giving way. the simple fact of the matter is all those people who cry out for a deal have got to support the deal today. it isa have got to support the deal today. it is a first step on many opportunities that this house will have to discuss. we have got to move forward now to respect the referendum, which was endorsed three and a half years ago. he is absolutely right. this is the first

step, not the final step. the house will have further opportunities to debate these issues. i will give way to the right honourable lady. does he agree with me that this is a panic measure by the member for dorset west? they had no idea or confidence that ideal would be before us today which would allow less... which would allow those here who want to secure a deal so we can move on and leave by the 31st of october. as a result, by today‘s measures in voting for the measure we will be forced even if idea is approved to seek an extension to the 3ist approved to seek an extension to the 31st of january. underlying that the

benn act only had one motivation to delay brexit and stop it. shouting i very much agree with the right honourable lady in the place that she makes and the principle that she has shown and the consistency she has shown and the consistency she has shown and the consistency she has shown throughout this debate. it is ended —— it is an interesting snippet that some of the voices in the media complaining where complaining that there has been insufficient time between the deal on the 17th and the debate in the house today on the 19th. and yet this is the timescale that the then acting legislation itself required. —— the benn act. acting legislation itself required. -- the benn act. he has used the word scrutiny on a number of occasions in his contributions, yet

he was on bbc this morning confirming there has been no economic analysis done on the deal being presented today. members are present might shake their heads, but how can we be expected to vote on something so fundamental to the future of our country without it?” suspect an issue that we can agree is there is no level of analysis thatis is there is no level of analysis that is probably going to change her vote. but indeed... as a former treasury minister, one of the things iam treasury minister, one of the things i am always aware and i‘m sure the chance i would recognise is that it is difficult to model ideal that was only done on thursday that cannot anticipate what changes the new eu commission will make, which does not set out what changes they he and kate will make in response to that and cannot second—guess what second change —— what changes will happen

ina change —— what changes will happen in a wider economy. you represent northeast cambridgeshire and you are a member of the conservative party. i‘m of the dup. can you tell me how they do people in northern ireland will be secondary to a union anywhere else across the united kingdom? does he not understand the angst and fear that we in the unionist ireland feel? we are treated as second—class citizens and our opinion, i see, treated as second—class citizens and ouropinion, isee, it treated as second—class citizens and our opinion, i see, it means nothing. an issue on which members across his house have will know that

his constituents never get a second—class service from him. in terms of the deal that the prime minister has negotiated he has also tried to operate in the same spirits by ensuring that northern ireland remains part of the united kingdom customs union and it leaves whole and intact and as a consequence of his constituents will benefit from the great trade deals that the secretary of state intends to negotiate. i am grateful for the brexit secretary giving way. the aim of amendment a is clear. the emperor has no close, it is to stop us leaving the european union at any cost. ver erg met this morning... jeering

normally our meetings are private, but under the circumstances, there we re but under the circumstances, there were three things i thought we should share with the house. first, the officers overwhelmingly supported backing the prime minister past ideal. erg supported the same and no member spoke against it. thirdly and most importantly, we agreed that if you vote for the deal, you vote for the bill. and if the dealer is passed today, we will faithfully vote the deal through to the and so we can be fit european union. you have our word.” the and so we can be fit european union. you have our word. i am grateful to my honourable friend for his support. this is as someone who previously oppose the deal of reflection that this is ideal for

everyone. a dealfor the reflection that this is ideal for everyone. a deal for the 52 and the 48, idealfor northern ireland and cambridgeshire. it benefits the united kicked them —— the united kingdom by enabling us to go forward and to take back control. obviously northern ireland... northern ireland gets special access to the single market. it has been promised more money, yet scotland is getting left high and dry. can you confirm that the scottish tory members have got no concessions? ican i can very clearly tell that honourable right honourable gentleman what the conservative fa cts gentleman what the conservative

facts have gotten, which is control of ourfishing policies, something he and other members would give back to brussels. let me make some progress and i will take some further interventions. in contrast with the efforts of the prime minister who is told that this was impossible, the leader of the opposition appears to reject the deal before he has even read it. this is opposition who cannot see further than opposition for opposition‘s sake. the shadow brexit secretary, to be honest, will always... he has been throughout the three years... he had seized a wide range of arguments to support his

case. he said injuly 2018, we respect the result of the referendum and recognise we are leaving the european union. but he now says any outcome must be subject to a referendum and we will campaign for leave. he said labour past my concerns were never about the withdrawal agreement or the backstop, they were about the political declaration. that is what he put on twitter. and yet he stands in this debate and objects to the withdrawal agreement because it has not changed. in a third meaningful vote which was on the withdrawal agreement and not the political declaration, he still objects to it. in 2018, he said the labour party could not support withdrawal agreement without a mechanism for universal exit. which is what has

been confirmed. and now he says it is no longer about that it is about the political declaration. indeed the political declaration. indeed the labour position throughout much of this debate has been a participant in the eu customs union and get what we heard from a senior member is that there real opposition is 100% remain. as one media report observed this week, during the cross—party talks they even rejected a copy and paste, it was alleged, of their own proposal. which they described as unacceptable. there are some in government who have cautioned against listening to experts during giving—macro secretary of state and

i were giving—macro secretary of state and iwere in giving—macro secretary of state and i were in the same room. you are watching a bbc news special as mps debate the government‘s brexit deal. we will be back with the commons in a moment. we want to let you know what has been happening on this historic day potentially in westminster. the opening of the debate today was at 9:30am and the prime minister laid out his case. but before he had the chance to speak of course, the speaker told the commons which amendments to the government‘s motion he was going to bring and he is bringing this oliver letwi n bring and he is bringing this oliver letwin amendment, which we will talk about ina letwin amendment, which we will talk about in a few minutes and peter kellerman which calls for a second referendum. we had borisjohnson taking questions from the floor, a number of questions from all parties. it does seem as though the prime minister is getting some support, the erg, the pro—brexiteers, seem to be on board. it is not positive whether all the

members will back the deal, but the majority of them will. likewise, the mps expelled over the benn act, although some of them are backing the letwin amendment. we have heard from alistair birch, a conservative, saying he will not act this letwin amendment. it is not clear what will happen with that. we have heard from dominic grieve saying the prime minister is trying to take us out on a gallop, without proper scrutiny. from caroline flynn, the pro—brexit mp who says she thinks the benn act is about trying to delay and stop brexit altogether and she wants to support the prime minister‘s deal. opening the debate the prime minister told mps, now is the time to get things done and any delay beyond october the 31st would be corrosive. appealing to mps to back the deal, he said this agreement could bring together, a politically divided uk. now is the time for this

great house of commons, to come together and bring the country together and bring the country together today. as i believe people at home are hoping and expecting. with a new way forward and a new and better deal, both for britain and for our friends better deal, both for britain and for ourfriends in the eu. and that is the advantage of the agreement we have struck with our friends in the last two days. because this deal allows the uk, whole and entire, to leave the eu on october the 31st, in accordance with the referendum, while simultaneously looking forward toa while simultaneously looking forward to a new partnership based on the closest ties of friendship and cooperation. and i pay tribute to our european friends for escaping the prison of existing positions and

ensuring the vision to be flexible by reopening their withdrawal agreement. in response, jeremy corbyn said labour could not vote for this deal, which was worse than the deal they had voted against already, theresa may‘s deal of course, three times. he has renegotiated their withdrawal agreement and made it even worse. he has renegotiated the political declaration and made it even worse. we are having a debate today on a text for which there is no economic impact assessment and no accompanying legal advice. this government has sought to avoid scrutiny throughout the process and yesterday evening, made empty promises on workers' rights and the environment. the same government that spent the last few weeks negotiating in secret, to remove from the withdrawal agreement legally binding commitments on

workers' rights and the environment. this government cannot be trusted and these benches will not be duped. jeremy corbyn there. today was billed as a do or die moment, in a way, a moment for the house of commons to decide whether or not to back boris johnson‘s deal. commons to decide whether or not to back borisjohnson‘s deal. now it isn‘t clear if the vote will happen. the common speaker has chose to put forward a significant and controversial amendment. it was proposed by oliver letwin and it will be voted on later by mps. if it is past it will require the prime minister to write to the eu by the end of today to ask for a three month extension to brexit. let‘s have a closer look at that amendment which has been tabled by the former conservative mp, sir oliver letwin, who sits as an independent. mps will vote on whether to withhold parliamentary support for the brexit deal, unless and until legislation

implementing the agreement in uk law is passed by mps. if this is passed, it will force the prime minister to seek a further delay to brexit beyond the 31st of october deadline and that is under the terms of the benn act, which was passed last month. norman smith is in the houses of parliament. norman, it is very complex, but what is your assessment first of all, as to whether we will get this crunch vote today? we have moved from super saturday too, so what next saturday? i don‘t think anyone knows. interesting twist in the last half an hour ago and you wonder if the letwin amendment is going to get the numbers. we heard from alistair burt, one of the tory rebels, critical borisjohnson who said he could not back the letwin amendment. we have heard from caroline flynn, labour mp attacking

the benn act and the letwin amendment. it opens the possibility that if the letwin amendment doesn‘t get through, then it is going on for a vote on borisjohnson‘s deal. i suspect if he can see off the letwin amendment, maybe he can get his deal across the line. if he doesn‘t, we are told he will send mps home, they will not be a meaningful vote today and everyone will come back on tuesday, we are told for another crack at this. what are we to make of it all? i am joined by labour‘s john healey. labour is going to back the letwin amendment, why?m john healey. labour is going to back the letwin amendment, why? it puts beyond doubt the prevention that needs to be in place for britain crashing out with no deal. it also allows parliament to do its proper job on behalf of the public, which is to scrutinise the legislation, that if borisjohnson does is to scrutinise the legislation, that if boris johnson does get a

vote on his deal today, must come with it in order for britain to brexit. if however, it gets carried, borisjohnson will have to ask, write a letter, but what certainty do you have that europe will agree to it? we have heard from jean—claude juncker, president macron and prime ministerjohnson saying there is no appetite in europe for further delay? we are into the realm of speculation and the substance of today is at the heart of the judgment everyone will take. the judgments today are about the borisjohnson deal. a bad deal, worse than theresa may's deal, selling out businesses and british jobs. starting, if you like, a race to the bottom, where borisjohnson wants to see britain in the future by undercutting environmental safety and product safety as well. what do you say to those mps like caroline

flynn who clearly feel the package borisjohnson flynn who clearly feel the package boris johnson came up flynn who clearly feel the package borisjohnson came up with overnight is sufficient and boris johnson‘s assurances that the nhs will not be on the table and there will be no lowering of standards, that has convinced a number of mps? not lowering standards are confounded by the changes he made to the withdrawal agreement and political declaration. he may save the nhs is not on the table in any negotiations with donald trump but the tory legislation opens up our competition to legislation and privatisation and that would put rocket boosters under that. i think to caroline flynn, labourmps, that. i think to caroline flynn, labour mps, look at the hard substance of this deal. it is bad for british workers' rights, british jobs. in areas like ours, for steelmakers, it will mean immediate tariffs and quotas for selling into our major markets in the european union. i think this is the substance

thatis union. i think this is the substance that is at stake this afternoon and you started by saying, there may or or may be a vote in the end. he may not even get hisjob done and a vote today. that is a combination of his closest allies, the dup don't like the deal. his closest people around him, oliver letwin philip hammond, don't trust him and it is the people who know him best who don't trust him. if labour mps helped boris johnson to get this over the line, what should happen to them? that will be a matter for the chief whip. we have accepted there are different views of brexit in the labour party, just as there are in the country. i am confident the large majority of labourmps, as we am confident the large majority of labour mps, as we have in the past, will vote together. but take a hard

look at borisjohnson's will vote together. but take a hard look at boris johnson's deal and will vote together. but take a hard look at borisjohnson's deal and his weak explanation of it this afternoon and voted down. how will labour vote on the confirmatory referendum amendment, which has been put down, will you back that? referendum amendment, which has been put down, will you back that7m referendum amendment, which has been put down, will you back that? it can be pretty clear that will not come toa be pretty clear that will not come to a vote today. there has never been sufficient support in parliament to see a second referendum. but on the technicality and how the house of commons works, thatis and how the house of commons works, that is motioned the government will not move. we know john mcdonnell is addressing the massive people‘s vote demonstration, last time they were here they were shouting where is jeremy corbyn stop now the second most powerful man, probably the most powerful man of the labour party is addressing this people‘s vote, ill aren‘t they becoming the referendum party? once the real risk of boris johnson crashing britain out of no deal at the end of october is

removed, that clears the way for a general election and people will then have the chance to pass judgment on three years of tory brexit chaos and ten years of failure on every other front from the nhs, in all the failure on every other front from the nhs, in allthe iran crisis, to food banks, to lower real wages and the housing crisis that people face as well. thank you very much for your time. the honest answer is every which way you look, it is incredibly nip and tuck and tight and the sort of early morning assumption that oliver letwin probably did have the numbers, now looking a lot more doubtful. ok, norman, thank you. we are going back to live house of commons and now the debate is being led by the brexit secretary, stephen barclay and his shadow, keir starmer who hasjust got to his feet. mr speaker, my dad was a toolmaker

and worked in a factory all his life and worked in a factory all his life and we lived through those doldrums. we lived through those doldrums. and thatis we lived through those doldrums. and that is why, when i go to a factory now, iam proud that is why, when i go to a factory now, i am proud for myself and my father when i see manufacturing on the tyne process, the revival that has gone on imports of manufacturing and then go to many of those manufacturing plants and management and unions speak with one voice, don‘t take us out of the customs union. this deal does just that and it will do huge damage to manufacturing. i will give way in a minute. and what of services? nothing in this deal is different from the deal of the previous prime minister. the weakest of weak deals for services. 80% of our economy. it is clear what this deal does, it

rips up close trading relationship with the eu and the price will be paid in damage to our economy and job losses. anyone doubting this should look at the words stripped out from the deal put forward by the previous prime minister, put the text side by side and ask some difficult questions. paragraph 19 used to read this," the parties envisage having a trade relationship on goods that is as close as possible with the view to facilitating legitimate trade". those words, "as close as possible", have been stripped out. why? now he has said we want as close as possible, now he has said there are all sorts of assurances. but between the text as it was between the previous prime minister, and today,

those words have been taken out and thatis those words have been taken out and that is not an accident. i will give way. thank you for giving way. at the heart of this is a question of destination, not an abstract of moving on today, but the impact of a deal on everyday life in towns like mine. so stop selling the sell—out deal to us as if this is the decision today. for all the talk of a deal, of norway plus, of canada plus plus, that government presents us with britain minus. minus protections, minus opportunities, minus prospects. if you confident in the deal, the government should put it to the deal, the government should put ittoa the deal, the government should put it to a final say, now the deal is through the gate and people know more than we did, have a say as to whether or not this is what they want. does my honourable friend agreed that a final say is the only way through this mess?

ido agree, i do agree, this isn‘t about getting a deal over the line, it is what we are getting over the line and what it means for our country. i invite the secretary of state to intervene on me. why were the words, as close as possible taken out of the text? if the aspiration of the government is to be as close as possible why ta ke is to be as close as possible why take the words out. nothing. laying the text alongside each other, the words about alignment are all but gone. a deliberate decision has been taken to take out the aspiration of as close as possible trading relationship and a deliberate decision has been taken

to ta ke deliberate decision has been taken to take out all the words about alignment. that is not an accident. that is not a typo, that there is a deeply political decision. doesn‘t that go precisely to the heart of why those of us on this side will not be able to vote for this deal? we are hearing from our collea g u es this deal? we are hearing from our colleagues in the trade union movement, who represent millions of workers including those working in manufacturing, and they are saying that this deal will be damaging for the future of jobs that this deal will be damaging for the future ofjobs and livelihoods? how can we trust the tories on workers‘ rights when, through the whole time i was a trade union officer, and the time i have been a member of parliament, this government has reduced working people‘s rights.

government has reduced working people's rights. i am grateful for that intervention. i make one more point and then i give way. ijust wa nt to point and then i give way. ijust want to reinforce this and then i will pause. not only is the aspiration for as close as possible taken out map references to a line taken out map references to a line taken out, taken out map references to a line ta ken out, the taken out map references to a line taken out, the new text removes the backstop is the basis for the future relationship, not in its own right but as the basis for the future relationship. that is very important because it means the starting point for the next stages of baseline fta with no safety is for workers‘ rights, consumer rights and environmental standards. they have gone from the binding legal bejewelled agreement altogether. i will come back to them in the political declaration. —— withdrawal agreement. i will give way.”

political declaration. —— withdrawal agreement. iwill give way. iam grateful to the right honourable gentleman for giving way. while we listen to his confession, can you share with the house what his honest assessment is? unless a deal said we will remain in the european union andi will remain in the european union and i will be no changes, he will find false tests and artificially high hurdles in order to preclude him voting for anything other than ignoring the result of the referendum. that is nonsense. let me just answer it directly. i had stood at the dispatch box and press amendment on the customs union time and again. members on that side had voted against it. we had put forward the basis of a deal and voted for it on their side of the house, so that intervention is nonsense. i will make progress and then i will give

way on both sides. it is obvious where this ends. it either ends with an fta significantly weakening rights and standards and protection is all it ends in no deal and wto terms at the end of the transition. iam terms at the end of the transition. i am grateful to my right honourable friend for focusing attention on manufacturing. is his assessment that this deal would lead to new rules of origin checks and other red tape on uk manufacturers exporting to the eu? yes stop anybody who has read the text knows it. it is absolutely clear there would had to be those checks. one broader point, this is not me speaking but what they had said to me. i will not name they had said to me. i will not name the company but one of our major motor manufacturers said to me, we

don‘t think we would ever be able to ta ke don‘t think we would ever be able to take advantage of any new trade agreement because we could never prove that 50% of our components come from the uk. that is one of the rules. that was their concern to me. i make point rules. that was their concern to me. i. make - point because it is i will make this point because it is really powerful. if people have not grasped this they do not know what they are voting for. they said to me, our components come from across the eu and at the moment we can show that 50% of them satisfy the rule to ta ke that 50% of them satisfy the rule to take advantage of the trade agreement the eu has struck. their position as they could never satisfy that requirement if the area is shrunk to the uk and there point to me was not that they are against new trade agreements, businesses are not. they said they would not be able to take advantage of them. that is what they said to me.”

able to take advantage of them. that is what they said to me. i am grateful for giving way. what puzzles me, i hear him setting out strong objections to the strategy this government has pursued. had the labour party agreed to hold a general election when it was first mooted, that election may be over by now. if they persuaded the country there would be a labour prime minister at the dispatch box. what is it about the position of the labour party that they are not willing to put it the country?” think i said this in a debate last week. i am think i said this in a debate last week. iam not think i said this in a debate last week. i am not going to vote for a general election until i know no deal is off the table and we have an extension. simple as that. i am grateful to the shadow secretary of state for giving way. i had really agonise this week over whether to support this deal and it has been profoundly difficult. but, does he share my concern with regard to northern ireland that, by disturbing

the careful balance within the good friday agreement between the two communities, we run the risk of inflaming unionist opinion in potentially very dangerous way, just in the sense that the honourable memberfor strangford in the sense that the honourable member for strangford made clear in his intervention? i am concerned about the position in northern ireland. the secretary of state quoted me on this earlier. it is true that i and the labour party had reservations about the backstop. i am not sure there were many people who did not have reservations about the backstop. one analysis, we thought it was right for northern ireland and we focused our attention on the political declaration. i criticised and was critical of the fa ct criticised and was critical of the fact it did not hard—wire dynamic alignment of workplace rights. ultimately, we thought upholding the good friday agreement was more

important and more significant. i would also say this. it is very important to read the small print. while it is true the current deal says that northern ireland remains as it were in the uk‘s customs territory, it goes on to explain that full bids going into northern ireland, the only ones that escape going effectively into the eu customs unions are those that are at no risk of going beyond northern ireland and are not going into manufacturing. the volume of goods that cross the border, that truly are treated as if northern ireland is in the customs union, is only that small category and the burden is on the person who is exporting to prove that. you explain to me, i am sorry, can a secretary of state or anybody explain to me how that can operate without very careful and

extensive checks? i am going to make some progress and then i am going to give way again. i thank the right honourable gentleman for giving way. he has made a very powerful speech and he has made a very good point about the backstop. it was a backstop that there is there in the last event, as it were. would he agree with me that this is a new agreement especially in relation to northern ireland ? agreement especially in relation to northern ireland? this is not a backstop, it is their future. essentially it is in perpetuity. the careful analysis he is now providing to the house, you can see honourable and right honourable members understanding and listening, it is the danger of us being bounced into a decision today with terrible consequences for the union and the country. i am gratefulfor consequences for the union and the country. i am grateful for that intervention and i will develop on that in a moment. i am very grateful

to the honourable memberfor giving way. the former prime minister used to say that no deal is better than a bad deal. does he share my concern is deal heroically manages to be both? in other words, is deal heroically manages to be both? in otherwords, it is deal heroically manages to be both? in other words, it is a bad deal but with a back door to where no deal if no transition is agreed, or no extension to the transition is agreed at the end of the year.” or no extension to the transition is agreed at the end of the year. i do agreed at the end of the year. i do agree with that and i will develop point. in recognition to the previous prime minister, although she said that, i always felt that she said that, i always felt that she had a profound sense of public duty and properly recognise the real risks of no deal and ultimately would not have taken us there. i do not have that level of trust in the current prime minister.” not have that level of trust in the current prime minister. i will give way. i am gratefulfor giving current prime minister. i will give way. i am grateful for giving way. any explore further the system of

customs checks? if ally lee‘s dumfries for northern ireland or lee‘s north wales for northern ireland and the ultimate destination is the republic of ireland, where will the customs checks take place? there had to be checks and they have to be done at the border between england, scotland and wales or northern ireland. there is no getting away from that. the argument that the prime minister tried to deploy earlier that he is not putting a border in the irish sea is wrong. any goods that don‘t fall within the restricted category of being proven they are not going any further than northern ireland, and they are not going into manufacturing are going to be subject to checks because that is the text written into the deal.” thank my right honourable and landed friend for giving way. —— learned.

never mind a national passion is about being in the european union or not, what are the implications for workers and their jobs? not, what are the implications for workers and theirjobs? ford left bridgend, 1700 jobs, 12,000 jobs across the south wales economy, because they were worried about a no—deal brexit. i have looked at this bill and there was a real risk that this was the end of just—in—time manufacturing in the whole of the uk. does my right honourable friend agree?” whole of the uk. does my right honourable friend agree? i do agree andi honourable friend agree? i do agree and i am deeply concerned because, asi and i am deeply concerned because, as i say, i am proud of the manufacturing base we have and the revival it has gone through. i‘m going to make some progress. i will ta ke going to make some progress. i will take more later but i am going to make some progress. mr speaker, it is very important that we work through not just the is very important that we work through notjust the technicalities but also where this leads us

politically. it is about the direction of travel for our country. if we go to a bare fta, and that is what it would mean, the government‘s own estimate shows it is a loss of 6.7% growth in gdp over 15 years. every region and nation will be poorerfor every region and nation will be poorer for it. the every region and nation will be poorerfor it. the prime minister‘s letter to president task of the 19th of august, made it clear that from the government‘s point of view, the point of our exit is to allow the uk to diverged from the rights and standards of the eu. let‘s nail this one. you don‘t need that if you want to go up and had better standards. you don‘t have to break the rule to bring in better standards. you can do that under the rule. anybody who wa nts to do that under the rule. anybody who wants to change the rule is not doing it to have the freedom to

bring in better standards because you don‘t need to change the rule for that. the only reason you need to diverged is if you want to go down. i will take some interventions. i will finish this point and then i will take individual. i am just going to finish this point. that is why, on this question of diverging skin it is very important to focus on level playing field protections. they are out of what was legally binding into the political declaration and only apply in full until the end of the transition period. 2020. it is obvious where the government is going. they want a licence to deregulate and diverged. i know they

will disavow that. i know they want their deal through. never say never, of course not. it is obvious where it lives. once you have moved out of alignment with the eu, trade becomes more difficult. trade becomes more difficult and the eu is not seen any longer as our priority in trade and gaze goes elsewhere, to make up. i will finish this point, if i may. once you have moved out of alignment, you do not need that. the further you me that the less easy it is to trade with the eu 27. once you have done that, he had broken the economic model we have been operating for decades. once you have done that, you look elsewhere. once you have done that make you look across to the united states. i will finish this point and then give way.

the gaze goes across to the us and thatis the gaze goes across to the us and that is a different economic model. notjust that is a different economic model. not just another country, it that is a different economic model. notjust another country, it is a different economic model. the deregulated model. in the us, ten daysis deregulated model. in the us, ten days is the holiday entitlement. many, many contracts at work are called contracts at will. hugely powerful corporate bodies have far more power than the workforce. this isa more power than the workforce. this is a political direction of travel, not a technical decision on the eu that takes us to a different economic model, one of deregulation, one of low standards, one where the balance between the workforce and corporate bodies gets far worse than it is now. would he agree that what this is is a project, an ideology for the right

and by the hard right. that is what we are looking at. this does not get brexit done. what we should be doing now is looking forward for the future of our children isn‘t it right that only by putting this back to the people and listening to all those people, the hundreds and thousands who are marching out there today, listening to those young people and giving them a say on their future? i agree... i give way. he talks about workers‘ rights and the eu entitlement for holiday pay, it is four weeks in the uk it is 5.6 weeks. if he wanted to reduce entitlements and reduce standards, why haven‘t we done that already?

because that isn‘t something the labour party whatever countenance andi labour party whatever countenance and i don‘t think the would countenance. order, order. mr hughes, you are most eccentric memberof the hughes, you are most eccentric member of the house. order. the shadow secretary of state for brexit is not conducting a private conversation with you. calm yourself. sir keir starmer.” conversation with you. calm yourself. sir keir starmer. i will give way.. the conservative party has luxuriated in telling us the benn act undermined our negotiations by forcing them into preventing no deal when being on the table if we left on the 31st of october. but the

prime minister, in his own words, has negotiated a great deal with that restriction in place. so what possible argument can they have for not agreeing that we cannot leave at the end of the next phase of negotiations with no deal, at the end of 2020. why would they not accept that restriction, given what they negotiated what the prime minister calls a great deal?” they negotiated what the prime minister calls a great deal? i have never accepted the proposition that by ensuring the country against no deal, that undermines the negotiations. i remind the house, i remind the house that in the negotiating window that ended on the 29th of march, at no point in that two years did this house take no deal off the table. the entire negotiations were carried out with the risk of no deal. the previous prime minister brought back a deal and half her own side would not vote for it. i will give way.

and half her own side would not vote for it. iwill give way. iam grateful to the right honourable gentleman and he has been very generous with his interventions. but cani generous with his interventions. but can i take him back to the philosophical and logical argument he is now trying to make. it seems to me that from the dispatch box on that site, the argument is that they have to have the european union to protect them on workers‘ rights because there is almost likely to be a permanent conservative government that will threaten those workers‘ rights. when and where does that exist that the labour party doesn‘t have the courage to say that they would fight an election and they would fight an election and they would make the case for stronger workers‘ rights and win that election, in which case that is democracy in action rather than somebody else protecting us? of course we would. the point is this, it has not been answered by any of these interventions, since the current rule allows you to have higher standards, why do you right into the deal that you want to

diverged? -- diverged. when we were in government, the labour government did go beyond, granting 6 million workers an extra eight days paid leave. the point is, much of the time we were doing that, it was being vociferously opposed and particularly by the prime minister, who built his journalistic career on attacking these kinds of measures. the point he is making is correct, that this is notjust about the point he is making is correct, that this is not just about the legislation we pass here, it is about the common rule book that gives us market access across the european union. the prime minister cannot promise a deregulatory future to the erg and a regulatory future to the erg and a regulatory future to the erg and a regulatory future to the labour party. i am grateful for that intervention, which very carefully a nd for that intervention, which very carefully and ably makes the point.

iam going carefully and ably makes the point. i am going to make some progress, i have given way many, many times. i am going to make some progress and i will give way again. so, of the two possible outcomes, one is this deregulated free trade agreement, which, in the end, whatever people say, will drive us away from the european economic model to a different economic model and we will look back on this as a turning point in our history of much greater significance, whether the skill gets over the line tonight. i want to address this, that there is no deal at the end of the transition period and this has to be significantly addressed. because i know some collea g u es addressed. because i know some colleagues attempted to vote for the deal because they believe it prevents or deal because they believe it p reve nts or re m oves deal because they believe it prevents or removes the possibility of crashing out on wto terms. it does not. under the previous deal,

if the future relationship was ready by the end of transition, the backstop kicked in. that prevented wto terms. that has gone. this is a trapdoor to no deal. i will quote the honourable member for trapdoor to no deal. i will quote the honourable memberfor basildon and billericay and i hope i get it accurately, but i understood as to what he said, the reason i am inclined to vote for this deal is very simple. if trade talks are not successful, then we could leave on no deal terms. i will give way. successful, then we could leave on no dealterms. i will give way. he is right with the quote, but what he has done, he has been very selective and taken it out of context. because had he continued... had he

continued, i then made the point that it continued, i then made the point thatitis continued, i then made the point that it is commercial reality that by leaving no deal on the table in any negotiations, it actually makes more likely, a good and fair trade deal and that is something i and the vast majority of colleagues in this place, actually want. we want an fta agreed with the eu by december 2020 and my firm belief is, and i am not alone here, by scrapping the backstop, the previous one, we stand more chance of achieving it. the honourable gentleman put his full quote in the library for honourable colleagues. he is right when he says if the trade deals are not successful, we can leave on no deal terms. let‘s explore what that

means. the decision on extending transition under this deal needs to be taken by the end ofjuly next year. that is eight months away. it is very hard, very hard to see how any government can negotiate a completed relationship within such a short time frame. particularly one which wants to diverged. the premise to brush this away earlier, and say well we are a line. if you want to stay aligned you could probably do a trade deal a lot more quickly. at this prime minister and this government wants to diverged. so the idea this does not lead to a no—deal brexit is one and nobody should vote for this deal on the basis that it is to ensure we don‘t leave at the end of 2020 on wto terms. i am going to make more progress and then i will give way. today, the prime minister dangles prospects of workers‘ rights and indicates amendments he might be inclined to

take, down the line. promises, promises. and i know these are important issues, i will make this point and then i will give way... i know how important these issues are too many members on the side pitted with the question of work rights, environmental rights and consumer standards. i remind all members of this house not a single trade union supports this deal. i urge everyone in the house to reflect on the likelihood of this prime minister keeping his promises. this is a point that has been made, last november, the now prime minister told the dup conference in terms, regulatory checks and even customs controls between great britain and northern ireland would be damaging to the fabric of the union and, he went on to say, no british conservative government could or

should sign up to any such arrangement. his words. what does this deal do? it puts checks and controls between great britain and northern ireland, it creates a customs border in the irish sea, it is precisely what the prime minister told the dup last november he would not do. typical of this prime minister. so those that are considering today putting their trust in this prime minister need to reflect on how he‘s treated his supply and confidence partners. promise, then burn. i ask how anybody could trust any promise he is now making. i will give way. to steal not only rules out the customs union it also rules out the single market relationship which affects service sector jobs

market relationship which affects service sectorjobs alongside the manufacturing jobs. as he has had, it isa manufacturing jobs. as he has had, it is a bonfire, it is going to be a bonfire on labour standards and environmental standards. does he agree this is a trojan horse for a no—deal brexit and this is why on the side of the house, our collea g u es the side of the house, our colleagues must vote it down and others who believe in the national interest, must vote it down? sir keir starmer. i said i would give way here, and i will. he will have heard the prime minister make a commitment to me and this house that he would legislate, if necessary, to ensure workers‘ rights in this country could not be inferior from those in the european union. to his question of trust and confidence, if questionoftrust andfconfidencefi'f such legislation were pursued in  such legislation were pursued‘rrr with