and woodford green. and weedferd green. how chingford and woodford green. how can he swear the players he has given that says northern ireland can fully benefit from free trade arrangements with the provisions in the agreement he agreed, and article 13, that require the eu to have a say in whether we succeed from the protocol arrangements? -- secede. because there is absolutely no provision for the eu to have a say, mr speaker, because as he knows, there are special provisions in the agreement that apply to northern ireland in respect of trade goods and sanitary measures, a single electricity market. and the benefit of that alignment, that is temporary for your alignment, mr speaker, is of course that it allows us to avoid a hard border in northern ireland. that is a great benefit. it allows us that is a great benefit. it allows us to respect the good friday agreement. but those arrangements are automatically

terminated... well, just very gently so to the honourable gentleman who has had an opportunity, if it is a point of order rather than a point of frustration? a point of order, mr sammy wilson. the prime minister has claimed to the house today that the agreement... you're watching bbc news from westminster where boris johnson is urging mps to back it spreads a deal in a final bid to get the uk to leave the eu in nine days. mps will vote on the withdrawal agreement bill later tonight. at 7pm. and in the last half an hour laura kuenssberg tweeting that if mps don't agree to the government a timetable for brexit legislation, they will pull the bill. the stakes could not be higher. we return to the red. the honourable gentleman as a cheeky chappie. he has made his

own point in his own way with considerable alacrity to which the prime minister can respond if he wishes. thank you, i will give way in just a moment. can respond if he wishes. thank you, i will give way injust a moment. i will respond by saying and repeating the point, mr speaker, but those arrangements are automatically terminated unless the assembly expressed the desire to retain some 01’ expressed the desire to retain some or all of them. those arrangements are or all of them. those arrangements a re naturally or all of them. those arrangements are naturally and legally dissolved into alignment with the uk, with the entire uk, so that they detour fault position is aligned with the uk, u nless position is aligned with the uk, unless there is a majority vote in the assembly against that alignment. those arrangements can in any event be replaced by the future relationship, based on a free trade agreement that we will conclude with the eu. at the same time, the agreement ensures that northern ireland is part of the uk customs territory and benefits immediately

from any uk trade deals. and because 21 gives effect to those measures in the protocol. and apart from those special provisions there are no level playing field provisions covering only northern ireland, there is nothing in the new deal requiring any different treatment of northern irish services, which account for over 70% of the economy. there is nothing in the revised political declaration which would oblige northern ireland to be treated differently in the future relationship with the eu which we will soon begin to negotiate. as i said, i will give way... will soon begin to negotiate. as i said, iwill give way... i'm will soon begin to negotiate. as i said, i will give way... i'm very grateful. i could not believe for one minute, mr speaker, he is seeking to in any way deceive the house, but he has repeatedly said today that there will be no differences between the way in which northern ireland is treated in comparison to kent or anywhere else in the uk. why then does the impact assessment produced by his own government slip out late

last night make it quite explicit at .2 for one that goods moving from gb to ni will be required to fill in porch decorations and entry summary decorations, which will result in additional costs as a result of northern ireland... how does the prime minister square that fact with the bluster and rhetoric that he is serving out here today?! prime minister! the house knows full well these are transitory arrangements and if the people of northern ireland choose to dissent from them, they melt away, unless by majority they melt away, unless by majority they choose to retain them. there will be no checks, i repeat, no checks, gb to ni. there is nothing in the revised political declaration that obliges northern ireland to be treated any differently in the future relationship. as i have

said, i would expect members from northern ireland to be involved intimately in devising a whole uk, whole world trade policy. indeed, the whole house... i give way. very grateful to my right honourable friend. is it the truly fundamental point that to deliver the uk hole and secure and prosperous out of the european union, members of this house needs to vote for second reading and, yes, vote for the programme motion so that it can be done on time, and then stand firm behind him and his negotiating team, so that he has the power to deliver just the relationship which is being implored upon him to put before the house in due course? that is excellent advice, thank you very much for that support. i wish to stress to my honourable friend is that the entire house will be involved in devising that future...

i give way. very grateful to the prime minister for his reassurances about workers' rights and the avoidance of race to the bottom and no regression and that will be recommended to the bill, because it is a huge issue for many members on this house and needs to be recognised by many members on his side of the house. can you give the same reassurances on consumer protection and that they will be written into the bill also?” protection and that they will be written into the bill also? i can indeed, mr speaker, give the right honourable gentleman that assurance. and there will be no race to the bottom, and for honourable and right honourable members who wish to be involved in the building of our future partnership, they will be every opportunity at every stage for this house to be involved, quite properly. order! there is

so much noise in the chamber that i fear that the honourable gentleman for north dorset who enjoys the exalted status of the chairman of the northern ireland select committee wishes to intervene in the debate. that is regrettable. the prime minister. mr speaker, i am delighted to repeat... to repeat our commitment to consumer standards and protections, which i know will be welcomed by my honourable friend. protections, which i know will be welcomed by my honourable friendm is, mr speaker, thank you for your advice. can i say to the prime minister, trying to square the difficult circle of delivering brexit under the umbrella but the good friday agreement and maintaining peace on the island of ireland was always going to be a big ask. not everybody will be happy with what the prime minister is bringing forward, but all community

should be happy that nobody is talking about a coach and horses being driven through the good friday agreement, and there are no communities, particularly at the border, who are now fearful of a resurrection of violence and bloodshed, and hatred. the prime minister should be congratulated.” am very grateful to the chairman of the select committee for his remarks, because i do intend to bring the entire house into the process of decision—making and into our confidence, and drawing on the expertise of the house, not least on environmental matters on which i know the honourable lady speaks with great authority. i am grateful to the prime ministerfor great authority. i am grateful to the prime minister for giving great authority. i am grateful to the prime ministerfor giving way, but i wanted to ask him... he is giving reassurances to labour party members behind me, can he reassure members behind me, can he reassure me about the facts of this trapdoor at the heart of this brexit deal? we know that if there is not an

arrangement agreed by the end of december of next year, we risk crashing out with no deal. could he give me the reassurance that he will extend that transition and will guarantee now at the dispatch box that we will not crash out at the end of december next year? mr speaker, i can indeed give her the assurance that there will be no crashing out, because we will negotiate a great new friendship and partnership within the timescale allotted. i know that honourable members on all sides have every confidence in the government to do that. they said we could not change their withdrawal agreement within their withdrawal agreement within the 90 days and that we couldn't get rid of the backstop. they said we could not get a new deal. we did get a new deal and we will get a new free trade agreement and partnership for our country. mr speaker, that is the project that lies before

us, ensuring that the great project can begin of building a new friendship with our closest neighbours across the channel. that is the common endeavour of our whole nation, and that will begin with because 31, which will give parliament a clear role, including i hope the honourable lady. thank you. isn't it the case that in order to get a deal with the eu, the prime minister had to make a choice over northern ireland, and a choice that he made was to sign up to eu trading laws in order to get frictionless trade with ireland and the rest of the eu? isn't it the truth that at the end of all the negotiations, the rest of the uk will face exactly the same dilemma? remain close, sign up to the rows, in which case we give up our say, so the rows, in which case we give up our say, so what is a point of brexit? or break totally free, in which case, what is the price? we

have not made that choice. he has done it over northern ireland, we face it over the rest of the uk. this is not getting brexit done, it is continuing the agony for years to come. mr speaker, obviously, i have a vision of this country with a very close friendship and partnership with the eu, but also being able to do free trade deals around the world. i think those objectives are compatible. the way it can be made compatible. the way it can be made compatible is evident here in this new great deal we have done, but it is open to her to work with us to ta ke is open to her to work with us to take it forward. i give way with pleasure to the right honourable gentleman. i congratulate the prime minister on securing a deal, i never doubted it for a minute! minister on securing a deal, i never doubted it fora minute! can minister on securing a deal, i never doubted it for a minute! can he reassure me that the moment this bill receives royal assent, hopefully sooner rather than

later, he will work tirelessly, along with the secretary of state, to secure the secretary of state, to secure the closest possible relationship to ensure we get our science the closest possible relationship to ensure we get our science funding? i thank my right honourable friend and brother for what he has said, thank my right honourable friend and brotherfor what he has said, and he has worked tirelessly in that sphere himself. i know how much he values that cooperation. as indeed i know how much members of the house value that cooperation. and we will protect, preserve and enhance it. and indeed, as i have said, honourable members across house will be involved in process. because parliament, under clause 31, parliament, under clause 31, parliament is given a clear role. i give way with pleasure to the honourable member for dover. thank you, he has been incredibly generous in this debate today. he will no doubt have heard of the dire

warnings in certain quarters that if we leave the eu that we will have problems at dover and chaos on the roads of kent. can he assure the house and me and my constituents that with this deal, there will be no problems at the channel ports, and no problems on the roads of kent? i can indeed give that assurance, mr speaker. the best way to avoid any problems whatever is to vote for this deal tonight. mr speaker, i will make some progress. let us pause and reflect on the scale of the choices before us. if we reject this new deal, what would the house be saying to the country and the world ? the house be saying to the country and the world? what is the alternative course of action open before us? to undo brexit, cancel a greater democratic exercise in this country's history "death to traitors, freedom for britain" even though i find it impossible to believe that any democrat would

contemplate such a course. time and again, this house has promised to honour the referendum, and the fact that the leader of the opposition is now proposing a rerun, i think it shows a regrettable contempt for the verdict of the british people. this house has repeatedly rejected a second referendum, and in my view, must emphatically do so again. i know some colleagues have been contemplating certain amendments that are not about delivering a new deal, but rather about trying to change it. i give way with pleasure. thank you, well the prime minister agree that a referendum took place, agree that a referendum took place, a decision was made by the british people, it is up to parliament to accept that decision and work with it? not my words, the words of the leader of the opposition. my honourable friend has encapsulated the point perfectly, and i think that the right honourable gentleman should reflect on what he has said.

what message would it send to our european friends. i give way to the honourable member for wimbledon. can i thank my right honourable friend for they will know that when i worked closely with him as london mayor how much he valued the conservation of eu citizens. i have the fortune to represent the constituency with one of the highest proportions of eu citizens. can you look again at the other deadline for the application for settled status? iam the application for settled status? i am delighted to say that they settled status scheme is carrying on ata settled status scheme is carrying on at a pace and we have every hope that the entire 3.4 million will register by the time of the deadline. but the best way to give all of our citizens confidence and security, particularly the 3.4 million is to get this deal through tonight, because this is how we protect their rights. and i know there are some colleagues who want to change video,

contemplating some amendments, that would change the fundamentals of the deal, and i have to ask the house, what would that say to our european friends about our good intentions? that we are proposing to come back to brussels to ask for a third agreement? that we will put it to a fifth vote? perhaps after another six months or another year! is there anyone who seriously believes that the eu would reopen the withdrawal agreement ain? reopen the withdrawal agreement again? on the contrary, our european friends could not be clearer. the deal on the table is the one contained in this bill, and a decision for this house is whether to ratify this deal, rather than going around in circles in a futile attempt to construct a new one. and then, mr speaker, there is the question of yet further delay. and i know some colleagues have been

contemplating the timetable of this bill, and asking whether scrutiny should take longer. and i don't think we should be daunted in this house by the task that we have before us, but let's work tonight and stay if that is what it takes to get this done. our european friends are not showing any enthusiasm to agree a delay, a delay that parliament has asked for. i give way. can i congratulate our prime minister on achieving this deal? i a lwa ys minister on achieving this deal? i always thought it would be enormously challenging to get all other 27 leaders to agree to change the deal. but this deal needs to be voted through, not only by us, but i'll -- but voted through, not only by us, but i'll —— but also by the european parliament and ratified across europe. does he agree with me that if we don't support the programme

motion tonight, we add great, great uncertainty and pushed up the risk of no deal? the honourable lady is com pletely of no deal? the honourable lady is completely right. those who have argued for three years that they are motivated for the desire to avoid no deal have only one logical course of action tonight, and that is to vote for a programme motion that ensures we leave with a deal on the 31st of october. doing anything else would, i'm afraid, mean this house abdicating its responsibilities and handing over to the eu council the decision on what happens next. whether the eu would offer a short delay or a long delay, or no delay, the decision would be down to the eu to stop and i must tell you, the public does not want further

delay, mr speaker. this house has discussed theseissues mr speaker. this house has discussed these issues for 3.5 years! what on earth while the public think of us if this house again tonight votes not to get on with it? not to deliver brexit on october the 31st, but to hand over control of what happens next to the eu, closing the path to living with the deal on the 31st of october, and opening the path to no deal in nine days' time? because honourable member is claimed they want weeks or months, perhaps even they want weeks or months, perhaps eve n yea rs they want weeks or months, perhaps even yea rs more they want weeks or months, perhaps even years more to debate this matter. the public will not be deceived, mr speaker, about the real purpose of such delay. when we are so purpose of such delay. when we are so nearly at the end of this process. our honourable member is really going to tell their constituents that at the last hurdle they decided to hand the decision to brussels greeff and even if the eu

council were to agree with parliament on a further delay, what would happen in that period after october the 31st. as the honourable lady rightly says, yet more uncertainty that is holding the country back. picture are businesses and our constituencies freezing their investments, the jobs that will never be created, the contracts that british firms will neither bid for norman. think about the export that will never leave our shores. i give way. i am very grateful to my right honourable friend forgivingly. he will know that the mayor of the west midlands is in very close contact with manufacturers in the area, including jaguar land rover. they have said that the most damaging thing to manufacturing and industry as a whole, as the uncertainty due to delay. they want not just uncertainty due to delay. they want notjust me, notjust the mayor, but

manufacturers want the deal done and the deal done now. my right honourable friend is completely right, the consequences of not getting this done and voting through this deal tonight is to continue with the paralysis that is affecting certain parts of our economy, and perhaps even worse, if we don't get this thing done, we face the continuing acrimony, the abuse that i'm afraid it is still heard on both sides, perhaps increasingly heard on both sides of the argument. the divisions will continue. i give way to the honourable gentleman. can i start by thanking the honourable memberfor broxtowe start by thanking the honourable member for broxtowe forgivingly notice? i am often hard to spot. —— for notice? could i bring his

attention to clause 41, the amendment that myself and my friend from wigan put down at the last meaningful vote? however, whether by accident or snake, the prime minister has managed to add a small addendum which means that any future vote would have to comply almost exclusively with the political declaration, meaning that this house would be constrained in what it could stay side is the future of this country. can the prime minister explained why that has appeared? and cani explained why that has appeared? and can i asked the prime minister on the purpose of scrutiny, this bill specifically to supply section 20 of the constitutional reform of governments at, which requires a 21 day resting period for all international treaties. why has the prime minister taken the decision to do that on this, and it is that something he plans to do in any future trade arrangements? mr speaker, on the point about clause 31, the intention is very clear, it is to allow the house to

participate actively and fully in the building of the future partnership, and i think that if he reads the political declaration, he will see that there is plenty of scope within that political declaration for a very, very active and full participation by all members of the house and devising that partnership. and on his second point about the deadline and the constitutional reform and government at, in my view, there is ample time for us to get this done. this house of commons has been discussing this issue for 3.5 years. we have chewed over this question again and again. our constituents will not be fooled by any further delay, they will not understand why thatis delay, they will not understand why that is necessary, and if we delay again, iam that is necessary, and if we delay again, i am afraid that we will miss an opportunity to heal the divisions between us and

the paralysis will continue. so, let me make it absolutely clear, there is no way! i will not give way, mr speaker.” hope it is a genuine point of order. point of order, mr david lyndon.” have a point of order concerning the motion. the bbc at is reporting that if the prime minister loses the motion he will withdraw the bill. given that the prime minister talks about working with the house, has he given you any notice that he plans to pull that bill? he has given me no indication on that. we must leave him to develop his case.” no indication on that. we must leave him to develop his case. i come to the point the honourable gentleman raises. i will in no way allow months... i will not. i will not allow months more of this. if parliament refuses to allow brexit to happen and instead gets its way

and decides to delay everything untiljanuary or and decides to delay everything until january or possibly and decides to delay everything untiljanuary or possibly longer, in no circumstances can the government continue with this? and with great regret, i have to go to the point that the honourable gentleman raises. with great regret, the bill will have to be pulled and people have to go forward, as much at the right honourable gentleman may not like it, we will have to go forward toa like it, we will have to go forward to a general election. i will argue at that election let's get brexit done, and the leader of the opposition will make his case to spend 2020 having two referendums, one on brexit and one on scotland. and the people, mr speaker, will decide. mr speaker, there is another path, and that is to accept... i will not. that is to accept as i have done that this deal does not give us everything that we wanted.

and all of us can find clauses and revisions that we can reject as we can in any compromise, but it also gives us the opportunity to conclude that there is no dishonour in setting aside an entirely legitimate desire to deliver the perfect deal in the interests of seizing the great deal that is now within our grasp. of seizing the opportunity to begin healing those divisions, to satisfy the aching desire of the british public, if we were just get brexit done and move on, do what those who sent us here to do want us to do, and that is to address their priorities. for 3.5 to do, and that is to address their priorities. for3.5 years to do, and that is to address their priorities. for 3.5 years this parliament has been caught in a deadlock... sit down! can't any deadlock... sit down! can't any deadlock of its own making. notwithstanding the fact that the honourable gentleman must emphatically be the largest member

of any parliament anywhere in the european union, he cannot insist that the prime minister give weight of the prime minister is disinclined to do so. i think the prime minister may be reaching his conclusion.” think i have given way quite a lot during the speech and i do wish to wind up, and honourable member as well wish to make their own contributions to the debate. for 3.5 yea rs, contributions to the debate. for 3.5 years, this parliament has been caught ina years, this parliament has been caught in a deadlock of its own making, and the truth is that all of us making, and the truth is that all of us bear a making, and the truth is that all of us bear a measure making, and the truth is that all of us bear a measure of responsibility for that outcome. and yet, by the same token, that we all share responsibility, we all have the opportunity now, the same opportunity. the escape route is visible. the prize is visible before us. visible. the prize is visible before us. a new beginning with our friends and partners. a new beginning

for a global, self—confident, outward —looking country that can do free trade deals around the world as one whole entire uk. the deal is here on the table, the legislation to deliver it is here before us. a clear majority in the country is now imploring us to get brexit done in this house. and i say to the house, let us therefore do it and let others do it now and tonight. i commend this bill, mr speaker to the house. order! the question is, that the bill be now read a second time. i call the leader of the opposition, mrjeremy corbyn. thank you, mr speaker. we want on saturday that if the house passes the government's deal it would be a disaster for our country. now as we look through the details of the bill, we see just

how right we were. page after page of what amounts to nothing less than a charter for deregulation and a race to the bottom. a deal and a bill that fails to protect our rights and our natural world. it fails to protect jobs and our natural world. it fails to protectjobs and the economy, it fails to protect every region and nation in the uk. this bill confirms that northern ireland is really in the customs union of the eu and goods will be subjected to tariffs. the prime minister said there will be no checks, that was saturday. but yesterday, the brexit secretary confirmed to the lords european union committee that under the government's proposals, northern irish businesses that send goods to great britain will have to complete export declaration forms. and today,

the government estimates, that exit declaration forms will be between £15 and £56 per customs declaration. so, the prime minister was, at best, andi so, the prime minister was, at best, and i am being generous here, mistaken on saturday. mr speaker, the more divergence, the harder that border will become, and the greater the danger that will put, the greater the risk it will put on the historic good friday agreement. does he think we should still leave the european union, yes or no? we are challenging this bill today and that is the whole point of this debate, and as he well knows, my party's policy is that in government we would negotiate an appropriate to deal with the eu and allow the people to decide the final decision on that.

and, mr speaker, this deal leaves open... one second. mr speaker, this deal leaves open the possibility of the uk crashing out of the eu without a deal by the end of the eu without a deal by the end of next year. i am very grateful to him for giving way, and i don't disagree with what he has said, but does he understand why those of us in seats that voted very heavily to leave, who stood on a manifesto in 2017 that said we would respect the result of the referendum, feel very strongly that this bill must be allowed to proceed to committee stage, so that we can engage in a detail of the debate and see if there is a possibility of getting a brexit steel that protects our constituents? that for many people backin constituents? that for many people back in towns like wigan, this is an article of faith in the labour party and in democracy, and that those of us and in democracy, and that those of us who are seeking to engage in the detail do so not because we will

support italy brexit, our votes at third reading are by no means secure, but because we want to see if we can improve this deal and keep peoples trust in our democracy?” if we can improve this deal and keep peoples trust in our democracy? i do thank my friend for that intervention, and i also thank her and her colleagues, some of whom represent seats that voted heavily leave, for the engagement and discussion we have had and the construction way in which that has been approached. i understand the concerns in those constituencies and those communities. and i know that she will support the principle of a customs union, which we had placed on record in both our manifesto and since then in the labour party. my own view is that we should vote against this bill this evening for the reasons that i have set out. i understand her view that it is possible to amend it in committee. that is always a process in parliament, but my recommendation would be to vote against

this bill. but i do understand and respect the way in which she has approached it, and the way that she represents her community and her constituency, and i know that she joins me and being pretty alarmed at the way in which manufacturing industry is under stress at the moment, and in the event of not having a customs union, would be under serious threat of remaining in this country. i'm very grateful to my honourable friend for giving way on that point. is he concerned that, of course, for many of those areas that rely heavily on manufacturing, the deal, as it has been set out, and leaving that customs union and single market, inevitably mean tariffs, which inevitably means less manufacturing and less jobs which inevitably means less manufacturing and lessjobs in which inevitably means less manufacturing and less jobs in those areas? i thank my friend for his

intervention and his constituency, which i know very well, was once a centre of manufacturing in britain, but the government of margaret thatcher put paid to that. and he is right that in the event of tariffs being introduced on manufactured goods, in the event of wt0 conditions, the opportunities for sales in the european market, which are obviously church at the present time, would be severely damaged. so i ask colleagues to think very carefully about what i see is the danger is behind the prime minister because my approach to this, because he doesn't offer a safety net —— the prime minister's approach. so many people are trying to intervene. can i deal with people are trying to intervene. can ideal with one at a time, please? very kind of you! the prime minister doesn't offer a safety net. order! ifi doesn't offer a safety net. order! if i may very gently say to the

honourable gentleman, it is a tad tactless when he hasjust been advised the leader is dealing at 14 —— with one first, to immediately to spring to his feet. ijoin him to remember his emotional intelligence. i don't think there is any process that allows an intervention on an intervention on an intervention. i think you would probably notice. i give way. i thank my honourable friend for giving way. today i am also minded to vote in favour of a second reading, not because i support that deal but because i don't and i want to improve it so it might respect the manifesto —— reflects the manifesto i stood on to respect that referendum, but to supportjobs respect that referendum, but to support jobs and trade, respect that referendum, but to supportjobs and trade, does he understand my motivation? can i say that i thank my friend for that intervention? having spent time in her constituency with her on a number of occasions, talking to people in her community, visiting factories and enterprises in the

area, i fully understand factories and enterprises in the area, ifully understand her concerns and their concerns and i commend herfor concerns and their concerns and i commend her for her work concerns and their concerns and i commend herfor her work in representing that area, and the obvious friendship there is between her and all the people she represents, so i think she is a great mp. mr speaker, her concerns are that she wants to represent her constituency and their concerns. i hope that she will understand why i believe this bill should not be given a second reading, but i'm also sure she will agree with me that to get this bill to debate less than 17 hours after it was published is a totally unreasonable way of treating parliament, and i hope she will also join me in the lobby this evening in opposing the programme motion on this particular bill. mr speaker, no wonder some of the conservative benches are suddenly so keen to jump on board with this deal, because it

opens the door to the no deal exit that this house has voted against on numerous occasions. does he understand the reason why so many of his own side and our own side want to get this through as we want to avoid no deal and the best way to do thatis avoid no deal and the best way to do that is to support this deal? so why won't he support it? i don't know what happened to the honourable gentleman's maths but so far three interventions expressing disagreement with the bill, but want a better deal in order to get a customs union —— a better deal in order to get a customs union -- well, i don't know what happened. it is hardly the position he adopts, so you should be careful in saying that all my collea g u es careful in saying that all my colleagues over here desperate to represent hard up communities so mistreated by this government are suddenlyjumping mistreated by this government are suddenly jumping on board mistreated by this government are suddenlyjumping on board with him. news for him, they are not, plain and simple! this, mr speaker, is a charter for a and simple! this, mr speaker, is a charterfor a brexit and simple! this, mr speaker, is a charter for a brexit that would be

good for the hedge fund managers and the speculators, but bad for the communities that we represent, our industries and people's jobs and living standards. in industry after industry, from chemical processing to car manufacturing, they are all deeply concerned about the way in which this bill will operate.” thank my friend for giving way. one of the reasons so many of us are concerned about the programme motion is how little time we have... when the prime minister tells us things will be better if we leave the eu. he himself said he would look at the work and life balance, that council directive, but on the 2nd of september he has already rolled out to me implementing that. it is a directive that would give people carer's rights, for directive that would give people ca rer‘s rights, for example directive that would give people carer's rights, for example care leave that our constituents don't currently have. does he agree with me that one of the problems with rushing this through is notjust what we will lose but what we will miss out on, that this prime

minister will not give any commitments on? i thank my friend for that intervention and of course she is absolutely right that while the prime minister claims there is no intention in his mind to undermine workers' rights, and i can't see into his mind so i don't know, but he says that, but my friend is right, there is no legal protection within this bill for a dynamic alignment on rights with the eu, on consumer rights, environmental protection, workers' rights, and much else besides. i urge colleagues to think very carefully on how they vote on this particular bill tonight. i will give way one more time then i will... i'm extremely grateful to the right honourable gentleman because i treasure the interview he and i gave together to sky news before he became the leader where the only thing we agreed on is we should leave the eu on democratic grounds. what has changed since he became

leader of the labour party, that he can't see that if he votes against this programme motion tonight, if he votes against it he and his whole party will be seen as voting against delivering brexit? parliament needs to do its job and thatis parliament needs to do its job and that is what we should be given the chance to do, not rushed into this 17 hours after the publication of the bill, and i would also say, as somebody who before i came into this house was a trade union organiser and official, that you don't give up what you have won, you don't give up what you have won, you don't give up what you have gained. you protect what you have gained. you protect what you've got and tried to get better in the future. this bill undermines workers' rights within our country and our society and those that vote this thing through in anyform those that vote this thing through in any form in its present way will find that many of the rights we have now got will be severely damaged. cani now got will be severely damaged. can i thank my right honourable friend for giving way? this place can be quite intimidating at times

andi can be quite intimidating at times and i came here believing people who sounded a bit posh and walked about with an airof sounded a bit posh and walked about with an air of entitlement somehow knew what they were doing and if nothing else i thank the prime minister for disproving that, at least. well said! i was catching a breath! the prime minister warned me, iwas breath! the prime minister warned me, i was getting up and down so much earlier on. members on this site are genuinely agonising over the best way forward recognising our constituents with very different views on brexit and i thank the leader of the opposition for the work he is doing to try to maintain that coalition, but regardless of where people come from surely it is important we make the information on the right information and right risk assessment. isn't it wrong that the risk assessment clinic have been incomplete? actually the government pours my own advisers have not even been able to rate their risk assessment because of the lack of time. he is right and is a former distinguished leader of his local

authority he knows about going through documents in detail and understanding and getting a chance to ta ke understanding and getting a chance to take advice on the implications of them. but the greatest brains in the world, and i'm sure this house does contain the greatest brains in the world, no doubt about that, 17 hours is not very much to deal with 40 hours is not very much to deal with 4o clauses and 110 pages of this legislation. mr speaker, the prime minister is trying to blindside this parliament to force through this deal, and this parliament must challenge him in doing that. thank you. can! challenge him in doing that. thank you. can i thank my right honourable friend for giving me way? does he share my concerns that should this bill be passed tonight it will open up bill be passed tonight it will open up free trade agreements with the us which will have huge ramifications for our valued nhs, and for the food that we eat? i thank my friend for that we eat? i thank my friend for that intervention. yes, it does, it does, because the only way forward

for the prime minister, then, is to go on to wto rules then seek a specialist trade deal with the united states. i don't know if he has noticed, but donald trump does adopt an america first policy, and donald trump is my attitude towards trade is, most generously, i can put it, one sided towards the usa. there will be no equitable deal with the usa and those companies in the usa that won control of our health service will come knocking on the door to take over our national health service. mr speaker, i will give way a little later on. this is a bill of huge significance and complexity. it will decide the future of our country, and the future of our country, and the future of our economy and economic model that we follow. to propose a programme motion at the end of this debate will mean that all 68 clauses have to be considered and voted on within the next... what, 24, 48

hours? starting this evening. that is actually an abuse of parliament and a disgraceful attempt to dodge accountability, scrutiny and any kind of proper debate. i'm grateful to my right honourable friend. has he noticed that lost 36, part one, which says it is recognised the parliament of the united kingdom is sovereign? yet the prime minister will not give this parliament the chance to fully scrutinise his proposals. indeed, my friend makes a very strong proposals. indeed, my friend makes a very strong case proposals. indeed, my friend makes a very strong case there that a parliament should have the opportunity to properly scrutinise what the executive wants to do. and i don't think the prime minister has really ta ke n i don't think the prime minister has really taken that into account in his botched and speeded procedure today, and his obsession with getting all this stuff through in a few days. what the officials once said would take four weeks to

properly scrutinise is now being donein properly scrutinise is now being done in one day. i simply say to collea g u es done in one day. i simply say to colleagues on all sides of the house, ask yourself the question, why? so much for parliament taking back control. parliament is being treated as an inconvenience that can be bypassed by this government. and, mr speaker, there is a crucial element to this. when we deal with major issues in this house, in this country, we need the information, and we need... if you are to hang on and we need... if you are to hang on a second, i will deal with this, mr speaker. that there has been no economic impact assessment whatsoever, made or presented to this house, at the very least, this house should have that assessment and that expert advice in order to scrutinise this bill. the chancellor of the exchequer doesn't seem to think it is relevant that this bill and the deal needs this kind of scrutiny, even more so in the

light of today's very dire public finance figures. he is absolutely right, there has been no economic impact assessment on the basis of this dell so assessment on the basis of this dell so many of the first might have to rely on theresa may's last withdrawal agreement assessment which show a detrimental effect on the north—east to particular, 7% of ourgdp. the north—east to particular, 7% of our gdp. how the north—east to particular, 7% of ourgdp. how can the north—east to particular, 7% of our gdp. how can this be justified in industry and manufacturing in the north—east, already so far behind the rest of the country? indeed, and my friend represents a constituency which suffered grievously from the industrial non—strategy of the tory government. where redcar was closed down, where there are huge issues about manufacturing investment all across her region and her constituency. this house knows full well and if the members opposite ca re well and if the members opposite care to listen they would know full well that what is proposed will damage manufacturing industry and therefore jobs, particularly damage manufacturing industry and thereforejobs, particularly in damage manufacturing industry and therefore jobs, particularly in the north—east, is the only part of the country that has a manufacturing

surplus on trade with europe and the rest of the world, in the north—east. rest of the world, in the north-east. i thank my right honourable friend for giving way, and the prime minister shakes his head but every single member in this house represents people who voted leave and who voted remain. what nobody voted for was a wing and a prayer, cake and eat it, blindfold brexit with no economic assessment, on the biggest transformation of our economy in peacetime history. does my right honourable friend agree that this is completely an unacceptable way to bring forward this legislation? it is not fair on this legislation? it is not fair on this house and not fair on the people who will lose theirjobs as a result. i thank my friend for what she has said and the way she has said it. we all represent people who voted in different directions in the referendum or didn't vote at all in the referendum and we all have to

represent them, but in making this decision, these decisions, we have to ask ourselves this question. if this deal is good for our country, why haven't they, the government, produced a single scrap of evidence to show that this is the case? thank you very much indeed, mr speaker. i am enormously grateful to the right honourable gentleman for giving way. let me pay tribute to a former labour leader matt, tony blair, who was the architect of the good friday agreement, which delivered peace and stability to northern ireland —— leader, tony blair. much needed peace and stability after 30 years of atrocious violence in northern ireland that affected all communities right across the island of ireland, so i am extremely concerned that the labour party, the right honourable gentleman and his collea g u es right honourable gentleman and his colleagues have anxiety that the prime minister's new brexit deal

doesin prime minister's new brexit deal does in some way undermine the good friday agreement and its achievements. would he take a few moments to explain his concerns? i think that is really important.” thank the member for her intervention, and i'm sure she would agree with me and i'm sure the whole house would that the good friday agreement was an historic step forward which has brought relative peace to northern ireland, and she is absolutely right. my concerns are this. this bill does create a customs frontier between northern ireland and the rest of the uk, something the prime minister told the dup conference he would not do, when it clearly does. it does require the certification of goods before they can be sent from northern ireland to the rest of the uk. it therefore does create a different trading relationship, and whilst there might not be an aspiration at the moment to put any physical customs point on road borders between northern ireland and the republic, i simply gently say this. the direction of travel is not a good one in this respect,

and the member knows as well as i do that as soon as you member knows as well as i do that as soon as you start that, you end up with seriously undermining the historic achievements of the good friday agreement. like my i am grateful to the gentleman for giving way. i just want to fight might return him to a simple fact i am a bit concerned about regarding where he has been on this issue ——” bit concerned about regarding where he has been on this issue -- i am grateful. i just want to return he has been on this issue -- i am grateful. ijust want to return him toa simple grateful. ijust want to return him to a simple fact. the european communities act. can he explain why he has changed and on this bill he will vote against repealing the 1972 communities act? i also recall as strongly supported the social chapter in order to try to bring social justice across chapter in order to try to bring socialjustice across europe, and i remind the honourable member of his historic achievement in bringing in universal credit and all the damage that has done to so many people in this country. the only economic evidence we can go on is the economic assessment carried out under the last prime minister, and

that was clear. yes, then i will move on. i thank my honourable friend for giving way. does he not agree with me that we should not without for anything that could make our country poorer, and this brexit deal would do exactly that? does he also agree with me that the previous referendum should have been regarded as illegal due to the overspend by the present prime minister? the only way forward is for a people's vote. people doubted in different ways in the referendum in 2016. that is obvious. but nobody voted to lose their jobs, obvious. but nobody voted to lose theirjobs, to find their regulations had been damaged and their living conditions had been damaged. the function of parliament is to hold the government to account and scrutinise this agreement. a bare—bones free trade agreement, which is what the prime minister is promising, would dramatically hit

our country's gdp and would disproportionately hit the poorest regions and make everybody in this country worse off. and it would lock in the existing privatisation of our nhs and nothing in this bill protects our health service or their public services from future trade deals. iam from future trade deals. i am grateful to my right honourable friend. does he acknowledge that many eu nationals in this country are many eu nationals in this country a re really many eu nationals in this country are really afraid? thread because they don't know what the future is going to be. in a market in my constituency, a seller who has lived here 15 years has been constantly asked, "when are you going home? " today i have also had an e—mail from a doctor in the constituency

who said, "there are significant concerns about the tardy response by the brexit department," for want of a better name of that organisation, and there's been no recognition of this doctor's status going forward. he is obviously very anxious and distracted by the situation. we need to keep primary care morale in the current difficult times, and our valued european doctors and nurses to feel confidence about their future within the uk. this doctor has been a cornerstone of the nhs in wales for over 20 years. my right honourable friend knows very well that we are losing doctors and nurses and we can't afford to do it. i thank my honourable friend for that intervention. and she says it with heartfelt passion, and she is right. there are many people who have come to this country, from all over the world, made their

homes here, made a massive contribution to our lives and our society, and every one of us owes our lives and our society, and every one of us owes our our lives and our society, and every one of us owes our health to those people who work in our nhs, whether they come from commonwealth countries, other countries or the european union, and they should not be put through the strain either of the windrush hostile environment or indeed the sword of damocles hanging over many of them at the moment because they know they only have five years of definite stay in this country. i will just five years of definite stay in this country. i willjust remind the house, it was this party that in july 2016, andy burnham, then our shadow home secretary, moved a motion guaranteeing permanent rights and residents of eu nationals, and the prime minister was the only tory to support it at that time. i don't know what happened to him since then. again, mr speaker, on the subject of trade and investment,

will the chancellor do his job and provide the huw with a comprehensive economic impact assessment on this deal, or at the very least —— provide the house. or at the very least will you do so before the report stage? this bill falls very short in all areas. i have given way a great deal, mr speaker. i am sure you will all agree. i will make some progress then give way to my friend over there and the member from brighton. on jobs and over there and the member from brighton. onjobs and manufacturing, this deal will reduce access to the market of our biggest trade partner, leave our manufacturers without a customs union. members, as we have heard from many interventions, will have heard desperate pleas from businesses in their constituencies, all saying... saying that they need frictionless supply trains, well then i ask them to do the right thing. let's work together to make sure a comprehensive customs union

is hard—wired sure a comprehensive customs union is ha rd—wired into sure a comprehensive customs union is hard—wired into ourfuture relationship with the eu.” is hard—wired into ourfuture relationship with the eu. i am very grateful to my honourable friend for giving way. he knows that we disagree on elements of this bill and this issue. as his former whip, with my wits tie on, can i ask him foran with my wits tie on, can i ask him for an assurance that those members on this side of the chamber —— with my whip's taione. can i have him as sure that those on this side of the house won't have it removed any more than he didn't have it removed when he exercised his conscience? —— have him assure us. mr speaker, i believe in the powers of persuasion, and tonight i would like to persuade my honourable friend, come with us, the out against this bill and vote against the programme motion, because i believe, and i think he may agree with me, it is actually in the interests

of his constituents.” am grateful to the leader of the opposition for giving way. does he share my concern that this brexit deal could lead to a loss of freedom of movement on the island of ireland for international family members of irish uk citizens? in other words, imposing the equivalent of a hard border between northern ireland and irish republic, denying families their reunification rights? will he acknowledge this is barely mentioned but still a very worrying aspect of yet another way in which this bill reaches the good friday agreement? yes, i understand and accept the member's and sounds on this, and she is making very eloquently the case forfar more is making very eloquently the case for far more scrutiny of this bill, so for far more scrutiny of this bill, soiam for far more scrutiny of this bill, so i am sure she will bejoining me in opposing the programme motion this evening because the programme motion will preventjust that kind of scrutiny, and i know from the programme motion there is only one hour allowed for

consideration of all those amendments, however many there may or may not be. i will give way to my quiet and demeaning friend, the demeanour of my friend... his demeanour, not... on workers' rights by removing any level playing field division, the government is asking us to give them a blank check on rights at work. government is asking us to give them a blank check on rights at workm isa a blank check on rights at workm is a great relief to the huw! i was worried the honourable honourable gentleman might explode into the atmosphere! very grateful to my right honourable friend, the leader of the opposition, for eventually giving way. mr speaker, i was incredibly concerned when i was reminded by my wife, earlier today, that we spent, my wife and i, longer choosing a sofa than we

have two debate this incredibly important bill. but the important point is this —— than we have debating this incredibly important bill. the prime minister plus my own legislative advisor, nicki da costa, has said, andi advisor, nicki da costa, has said, and i would advise that and has advised him that she thinks this house needs at least four weeks to debate this important legislation in orderfor it to debate this important legislation in order for it to go both houses. debate this important legislation in orderfor it to go both houses. we just don't have enough time to debate this. would he agree? —— nikki da costa. my friend makes a very strong point. we got the bill at 8:15pm last night, and this afternoon at one o'clock we start debating it. it is ludicrous, utterly ludicrous. then we go into committee stage, then it goes to the lords, then, as i said in response to the member for brighton, lords, then, as i said in response to the memberfor brighton, it lords, then, as i said in response to the member for brighton, it goes to the member for brighton, it goes to one hour debate on lords amendments. these are serious issues

that have huge implications for communities, factories, jobs, people. it shouldn't be dealt with in this way. i am very grateful him giving way so many times. over the last couple of years members from across the house have asked many questions about the customs relationship between the eu and the uk, post brexit, but nobody thought to ask the question, whether customs arrangements within our own country would be affected? doesn't the honourable gentleman agree with me that the prime minister should, at the dispatch box, apologised to the businesses in britain that trade within britain and will now have to start filling forms out they would never have had do before? indeed, and that is just one aspect of this bill that has been revealed today. and i suspect there is much more that will come up. i will it is three o'clock, you are

watching bbc news, live coverage from westminster as the government tries to get its brexit bill through parliament with a vote, and a vote on its three—day timetable to continue pushing through its deal. borisjohnson continue pushing through its deal. boris johnson telling continue pushing through its deal. borisjohnson telling mps that if the programme was rejected and the eu confirmed italy to the 31st of daily —— 31st of october exit, he would push for a general election, opposition mps called that a childish attempt at blackmail. let others continue to listen tojeremy corbyn. i think we should understand the threat that the springs. mr speaker, i was speaking about workers' rights and the government wa nts workers' rights and the government wants us to trust them on it. this bill means that the government merely has to inform the house if they imposed to divert from eu standards. and am i correct in understanding that no notification, let alone a vote would be required if the measure is currently contained in second

legislation? the provisions for all the way, way short of the workers' rights eu standards bill that my right honourable friend for grimsby put forward and the tuc concluded today, this deal does not make the tuc test that any brexit outcome must secure. by that any brexit outcome must secure. by moving away from an economic relationship with the eu that he would be a disasterfor working people's jobs and livelihoods. would be a disasterfor working people'sjobs and livelihoods. the deal would not require... i am very surprised that the members opposite do not want to hear what the tuc has said about this deal. the deal would not require government to maintain existing rights, would not require rights to keep pace with those across the eu and would leave workers with significantly reduced ability to enforce the rights that they have, and concludes by saying it would do nothing to improve employment rights in the uk now or in the future.

so, mr speaker, on the environment, they talk about maintaining world—class environmental standards, but actions speak louder than words. so, environmental standards, but actions speak louderthan words. so, can environmental standards, but actions speak louder than words. so, can i ask the prime minister. i'm not giving way for a while. can i ask the prime minister, instead of entrenching non—regression and environmental standards into this bill and they are deal, why is he instead taking out a—level playing field commitments? on all these issues, you do not have to take my word for it, manufacturers and industry are deeply concerned about this deal. environmental campaigning groups, green groups, are deeply concerned. i challenge the prime minister to name a single trade union in this country that backs this deal. he knows he can't and they have made their views very clear, which the tuc... i will not give way. mr speaker, that is not

all. what may be the most... order! the leader of the opposition has made it clear he is not giving way at the moment. there is a fine line between beseeching someone and heckling them. members are on the danger of falling on the wrong side of that line. he is entitled to continue his speech and he will do so. continue his speech and he will do so. mrjeremy corbyn. thank you, mr speaker. the prime minister and i agree on very speaker. the prime minister and i agree on very little but we gave away a great deal and our speech and i will not do so for the moment. clause 30, mr speaker, makes it worryingly clear that no trade deal with the eu is agreed by the very ambitious date of december next year, ministers can just decide to crash out the uk on wto terms. this, mr speaker is not getting brexit done, it is merely pushing back the very serious threat of no deal to a later date. but let us be clear. as

things stand, this bill spells out what is a deeply damaging bill that the prime minister has negotiated. this is why he is trying to push it through without scrutiny. mr speaker, the labour party will seek more time to scrutinise, we will seek a very clear commitment on a customs union, a strong single market relationship, ha rd—wired commitment on workers' rights, non—regression on environmental standards, and loopholes closed to avoid the threat of a no—deal brexit once and for all. lastly, mr speaker, the prime minister's deal should be returned to the people to give them, not members of this house, the final say. they always say the devil is in the detail, and having seen some of the detail, it confirms everything we thought about this rotten deal. a charter for

deregulation across the board, paving the way for a trump style trade deal. they do not like hearing this, mr speaker, so i will say it again. paving the way for a trump style tra d e again. paving the way for a trump style trade deal that will attack jobs, rights and protections. and open up our precious national health service, and all the history and principles behind it, and other public services to even more privatisation. this is exactly what the prime minister set out in his letter to the eu commission president, when he set out that alignment with eu standards and i quote from the prime minister's letter, "is not the goal of the current uk government". there you haveitin current uk government". there you have it in his own words. it is a vision for the future of our country, mr speaker, that my party, the labour party, cannot sign up to and does not support. that is why

we will be voting against the second reading tonight, and if that is carried, we will vote against the programme motion to ensure this elected house of commons has the opportunity to properly scrutinise this piece of legislation. thank you, mr speaker. before i call the right honourable gentleman, i will ta ke right honourable gentleman, i will take the point of order from yvette cooper. thank you, mr speaker. the home affairs select committee was due to take evidence from the home secretary tomorrow afternoon. i have been trying to speak to the home secretary today, because she does not want to give evidence tomorrow, andi not want to give evidence tomorrow, and i have informed the committee of this. we have offered to change the timing of the session to tomorrow morning, i would timing of the session to tomorrow morning, iwould hope timing of the session to tomorrow morning, i would hope she can now agree to give evidence tomorrow morning, because we have been seeking to get the session in the

diary since the beginning of august. this is a matter... order. this is a matter of diary management between the right honourable lady and the home secretary, but i think the general principle is that every minister has for some reason to duck out of the appearing before a select committee, which sometimes has to happen, an alternative arrangement is made. i am very grateful to the home secretary for signalling with her usual good nature that she is willing to appear before the committee. all right, because i am ina mood. committee. all right, because i am in a mood. one more. can the home secretary confirmed she will do so, because it was due to be on preparations for brexit?” because it was due to be on preparations for brexit? i think the matter will be resolved speedily. i do not require any help from a memberof the do not require any help from a member of the third row who thinks he has a role to play in these matters. he has no contribution to make whatsoever. mr iain duncan smith now. mr speaker, i know

that although i am not on the time limit, i will be as brief as i possibly can to get everyone in. can ijust say, some 25 years ago, the maastricht treaty finally passed into law in uk law, and i remember with some fondness on many occasion going through the opposite lobby to vote at that stage against the government, but i was always joined by the jolly figure of the existing leader of the opposition right now. we shared many a conversation about how terrible that was and how given the opportunity one day we would join together to repeal the 1972 european community is out. and i am sorry i say to the leader of the opposition, genuinely in friendship, i would love to know what happened in the intervening 25 years that changed his mind about the european

union, and that now he needs longer wishes to repeal that act? i've mesh his friendship and i would like that to be put on record. it was the only thing we ever agreed about. notjust yet, iam thing we ever agreed about. notjust yet, i am conscious of time. not just yet. i would like to make this point that i rise to say to my right on yourfriend, the prime minister, and to congratulate him on what i thought was an excellent speech. and secondly, to say that i am absolutely, without question of a doubt, going to support this tonight in both votes, both in the second reading vote and i believe massively importantly in the programme motion. at maastricht we did not have programme motions, some people might recall that we had to have 100 hours in committee before we could actually come down and get a limit. sometimes i wonder if that wouldn't bea sometimes i wonder if that wouldn't be a good thing, but not tonight, it

has to be said! and there is a reason, because we have had more than 100 hours in committee over the last 3.5 years! the reality is that if there is anything about this arrangement that we have not now debated, thrashed to death, i would love to know what it is. in a minute, i promised... ijust want to make the point that for those who say they do not have enough time in the next few days, because there are so the next few days, because there are so many things to debate, of course, they forget and i see my right honourable friend sitting to my left, there was a white paper published last year that contained, sadly, most of the elements of the withdrawal agreement within it. and that was debated, and it has been debated in a meaningful vote, after a meaningful vote, many of those things have not changed. now, ifor one, would like to see more of its changed and i will come back to that any second. i give way. ijust wa nted any second. i give way. ijust wanted to emphasise the need for

scrutiny. he said in an earlier intervention that this bill is repealing the european community is act in 1972. in fact, in clause one it is reimposing it! surely they should be scrutinised properly by the house. he has known that now for over one year. there is no surprise in this. i certainly have real concerns about this, but i have to tell him, i have known this for some time. this did not suddenly pop up in my right honourable friend's agreement. we have thrash this out through white paper, meaningful vote, meaningfulvote... through white paper, meaningful vote, meaningful vote... honestly, we have to ask ourselves the question, when was that this house has not debated that element to absolute destruction?” has not debated that element to absolute destruction? i give way. i am grateful but i am on a different side to him on this occasion as i was on at maastricht, but still i enjoy his speech. would he accept that until very recently there was no suggestion that

the england, scotla nd no suggestion that the england, scotland and wales were going to go into their own customs union and single market? the whole of ireland, including northern ireland, are going to go into a single market and customs union, with the continent of europe. indeed, that was expressly being rolled out only a few months ago by the present prime minister. so within three hours and other issues that is to be debated tomorrow morning. if every member of the dup tries to speak they will be reduced to a three minute time—limit in their speeches. why on earth is he having spent 100 hours over maastricht, why do they think we should not debate such an important constitutional issue?” should not debate such an important constitutional issue? i am absolutely happy to debated, and he touches on the one issue that wasn't

in the white paper and is different, andi in the white paper and is different, and i accept that. had to the opposition sat down carefully through the usual channels and discussed the really serious elements that they wanted more time on, it may have been possible to have allowed that. but the reality is they have taken the position from the first day that they would oppose it but make no other propositions. for example, we could go around the clock and we both agree about that, but the answer is we have time, what is to be cared for, i have no problem with that. the simple point i want to make is that those who really argue endlessly that there is not enough time are really arguing that they do not like the idea of the deadline of the 31st and they do not want to stick to it. as my right honourable friend the prime minister said, it is in law, we will stick to that. i am conscious others want to speak, i want to get through these points. i might take another intervention but not immediately. the reality is that

we also spent... he intervenes quite a lot, i do not mean that rudely. there is a very good video doing the rounds, i'm sure my learner trend has not seen it, but it would be good if he had. not about him, but many others who have argued here about one case, and it shows how many people since the referendum have massively managed to change their views. the streets of westminster are marked by the skid marks of politicians who have now done u—turns on the whole position they took directly after the referendum. we had pledges to implement the referendum, i noticed that the shadow secretary of state for brexit has said on two occasions when it first came out, the referendum would had to have been implemented. now they are shifting their position around and they now wa nt to their position around and they now want to delay, and more than that,

as the leader of the opposition said, he now wants to make certain that it can't possibly go through. so, that really brings me very briefly to the whole issue, mr speaker, of two points that were made. one, the second referendum, which others want to amend this too, and they want more time to do that. i have a simple point about that, which is simply this, those who want a second referendum, very carefully of course, argue that it should not contain a question about leaving, which does strike me as bizarre. but the more important point is, why should any member of the public, why should any member of the public, why should any member of the public, why should any one of our constituents who voted in the first referendum... one second, please wait. why should anybody, any of our constituents, why should they believe anyone of us now, having promised them at the time of the previous referendum in 2016 we would implement it, having them come into this house and voted to implement it, and voted

for the signalling of article 50, the letter releva nt to signalling of article 50, the letter relevant to that. should it be possible for us to say, don't worry, trust us, although they said it to you last time and have now reneged on that, we will give you another chance, because we think somehow you might change your decision, and if you don't, you need to trust us that we will stand by the decision that you haven't changed, even though you give us a decision before? ? that frankly is utter absurdity!” give us a decision before? ? that frankly is utter absurdity! i give way. i am grateful to my right honourable friend. he may have admitted inadvertently that those advocating a people's vote or second referendum did not want to put the option of leaving a net. i have to tell him, that is entirely inaccurate. perhaps you would like to consider this... he believes that this debate should be curtailed. one thing i have learned that if you wa nt to

thing i have learned that if you want to get public acceptance of a decision that people do not like, the process of debate is absolutely key. so, he is going to maximise the resentments when in fact the opportunity exists to go back to ask the public to get confirmation that thatis the public to get confirmation that that is what the majority wants.” am always grateful to receive an intervention from my right honourable and learner friend. intervention from my right honourable and learnerfriend. i disagree with him and that the british people voted to leave the european union, so they clearly like it, and they like the idea that we will get on. i do not know who he is talking to in his constituency, but most of those who voted remain in my constituency, keep saying, whatever else, let us get this done and done now. and i come back to the point, i had my right honourable friend will know fully well, because he has played a significant part in these debates over two prime ministers, and he knows that he has not missed

and he knows that he has not missed a single opportunity to put down amendments and a debate almost every single part of this agreement and analysis that is in front of us. i have no problem with that and he remains a friend, despite the fact that we disagree. i refuse to be rude or antagonistic. i simply say that he knows that and he has played his full part. i will give way for the last time. i am grateful. isn't one of the real problems this parliament and the previous parliament and the previous parliament faced that when we voted, forward whatever reason, when giving this decision back to the people, we decided not to be representatives, to be delegates? and on this one issue only, we are delegating, to carry out the wishes of the majority? that does not mean to say that the minority... but if in fact this place, after saying we should be delegates,

why are the same people advocating a second referendum when we will be delegates and they can't manage the first one? do you know, i always love giving way to the right honourable friend in this particular moment, because he talks common sense. the reality is that when you pass the referendum bill, and then actually confirmed that after the referendum, we made it very clear. and although we are a house of representatives, not to delegates, we handed back the sovereign power, which comes from the british people, to us, for a period of parliament, we give it back to them to make that decision. having made that decision, as my right honourable friend, the prime minister knows, we now must act on that, and therefore the choice for us comes that, and therefore the choice for us comes down to, are we prepared to see this negotiation? as far as i am concerned it has for some things i do not particularly like, but i

recognise the overarching priority right now is therefore to deliver on the referendum and leave the european union, and this remains the only way that we can achieve it. so, i absolutely agree with him. and i wa nt to i absolutely agree with him. and i want to conclude. i can't give way, i have given away enough. just to say in passing, any attempt in the process of this to amend this to a customs union, i simply argue this point, and i thought it was made clear throughout, and many of the comments made from members opposite, including the leader and others, as i understand it, was that the customs union i understand it, was that the customs union was i understand it, was that the customs union was back —— part of that package of leaving. others will disagree, i do not tell them they are wrong but i simply say this. i think it was explicit throughout the whole referendum that the jewel of the crown in leaving was to be able to set our own trade negotiations and trade deals. and i actually believe in taking that power back it isa believe in taking that power back it is a really critical process of taking back control. if we hand back

that power i think it is an enormous mistake. it must also be said, that i think it is somehow, and it is up to the speaker, it will be a wrecking amendment, because it is not possible to go back and asked them to change the treaty one more time, because this would therefore wreck the bill. so if there is anyone reason to do it, it is to stop this bill and stop us leaving the european union. others will want to do it, i do not agree with him. i therefore conclude, mr speaker, on this basis, we must all make difficult choices. i want the government to engage enormously with our colleagues from northern ireland because there is very much an issue here about them leaving with us when we strike a future trade deal. one second. the point i want to make, i think it is really important that we engage with them, because we must leave as one union, not separated or separable. i will give way for the

very last time. i thank the honourable member for giving way. the honourable member has said to this house that little has changed and we do not need further debate. the prime minister and members of this government previously said just a few weeks ago that they would never accept a border town the irish sea. this change in this agreement is the most fundamental change in our union since the act of union. that merits debate and discussion. this house needs to listen to that. listen, i genuinely agree with the honourable lady that it merits discussion, but i also think that the key elements to this... i am finishing with us. the key element to this is very important that in this implementation period there are lots of things that many of us dislike and there are things that i dislike, not least of which are some of those arrangements. but i have to say that the key question is this, to what degree can her party discuss

and agree with the government that when we finally strike that free trade deal, that we leave as one union, we do not continue down with those arrangements? that is the point of the question i asked earlier, and i simply conclude on the basis that whilst there are some things that we disagree with and dislike, the honest truth is that we are faced tonight, i think on two votes with the simple question, do we now want to give the reality to the vote in 2016, when the british people that voted to leave the european union? if we delay it one more time, not only will we have to fight them, worse than that, i think, the british people will utterly lose face with this place, which i think has to be their representative body, but it will seem representative body, but it will seem to them it is no longer. let us get this done and start this process tonight. just before i call mr ian

blackford, point of order. thank you, mr speaker. i have serious concerns and that there has been a mistake with the printing of the withdrawal agreement. we have heard reference in the speech of the prime minister and through others of clauses and provisions within this that tariff arrangements would disappearfor northern that tariff arrangements would disappear for northern ireland with the signing of this deal. i cannot find those clauses and i took the opportunity, mr speaker, during the leader of the opposition's speech to look at it again. i cannot find those causes within my copy, so perhaps, mr speaker, could you give me clarity as to how we can get certainty? my copy perhaps has some missing pages and that this has been some form of printer error or can the government exist where these clauses exist because i cannot find them? i'm sorry, the honourable lady in the course of her attempted point of order frankly elevates me to the status that i do not enjoy. that is

well beyond my limited capabilities to know the precise order of clauses or that which is present and that which is not. my counsel to the honourable lady is that in pursuit of our mission she could make a point of intervening on colleagues who speak with a compendious knowledge of the contents of the bill, to seek to extract from the information that she seeks. i can see many pointy headed to brilliant brains on the benches of the government, who are doubtless going to rise to celebrate the merits of the bill and whom she can usefully question on this matter. very well, whether it will profit her i do not know. but i am offering my benevolent assistance within my modest capabilities. point of order. on that point of order, mr speaker, i also noted that the prime minister referred to checks and decorations on gb northern irish goods being

transitory and melting away unless a majority of northern ireland choose to retain them. i also share concerns if that is not in fact correct, and perhaps there has been some confusion between the future decision relating to a single market and being in a customs union. and does it highlight the challenge we have, mr speaker, that not only does the prime minister appear to need time to consider the real implications of the decisions being taken that will have significant impact, not only on this country, but in particular, on our trading relationship with northern ireland and also from northern ireland to the european union, and really adds to the weight of the concern about the lack of time to properly scrutinise these issues in this debate? first, i don't sniff at the concern that the honourable lady races over the allocation of time, but ultimately, the house has ownership of time in

a simple sense that it determines acceptance or otherwise of the programme motion. secondly, and please do not take this as a pejorative observation, i am taking a holistic view of this, what she is really saying is that there are great disagreements about what is or is not the case, and it comes to mind the fact that people often say, well, give us the facts and then we will make a judgment. sadly, it is not so simple. there is no agreement on what the facts are and that must come out in the course of the debate, which is well beyond the competence of the chair. if there are no further points of order, we can now proceed, because i think the leader of the scottish national party is any state of heightened animation at the prospect of being able to or rate to the house. mr ian blackford. indeed, mr speaker, and can i see it is a pleasure to follow the right honourable member for chingford and woodford. we perhaps do not agree on the destination we should be heading to, but he certainly makes his case

with passion. in the points of order that have just been made there, it absolutely demonstrates in what is an absolutely fundamental piece of legislation, which is going to affect all of us, our children and our grandchildren for decades to come, we must have proper scrutiny, we must be able to tease out the fa cts we must be able to tease out the facts of the matter. and it is the case that the government in london has an obligation to negotiate with parties from northern ireland, as the right honourable member said. but also to negotiate with the devolved administrations in edinburgh and in cardiff. and in that spirit of generosity which is suggested by the government, then there must be real dialogue and negotiations with all parties that are involved in this. because the simple fact remains that whilst we on these benches have no desire to leave the european union,

i do regret that over the course of the last three years that we have not had the opportunity to explore in detail a compromise position which may have been staying in the single market and customs union, which in doing so would have resolved many of the difficulties that we now face when it comes to northern ireland. and i have to tell you, and i thank the right honourable gentleman for reminding us that we spent 100 hours in committee over maastricht. 100 hours. more than 100 hours. mr speaker, what on earth are we doing? what on earth are we doing? pushing this legislation through over a couple of days. and i do appeal to eve ryo ne couple of days. and i do appeal to everyone and i mean everyone, i am looking at members on the government benches. let this house do itsjob. let this house do itsjob, and let's have proper scrutiny over something which is absolutely

so fundamental. at the heart of the maastricht rebellion, i would simply make a simple point, in the first place, there is no manifesto commitment to there is no manifesto commitment to the maastricht treaty, and secondly there was no referendum.” the maastricht treaty, and secondly there was no referendum. i have to say, iam not there was no referendum. i have to say, i am not sure what the releva nce say, i am not sure what the relevance of that intervention was at all. but let me say... one more time. icanfind i can find no part of it which actually meets a single promise that was made by the believe campaign in the referendum. not one of their promises has been met by anything in what is a very important new agreement and it must be right at this place should scrutinise it's because as we've already heard, not only are people i'm sure inadvertently standing up and accepting things which don't appear

to be the case but as all of us look through this huge document which contains new products to its rediscover on a return of the page is something new that should be scrutinised. i have to say that the right honourable member is correct. the bill was published last night, it takes time to have effective scrutiny of this when i look at the cove na nt scrutiny of this when i look at the covenant bench as i can see many sitting there this is happening and if the bullet was on the other foot they would be screaming like mad. that this house with not being able to express its democratic obligation to express its democratic obligation to look at things carefully. let me just look at one thing very quickly. we know that because the transition period is going to and at the end of 20/20 and we know that if the government wishes to seek an

extension to transition that it has to apply for eights by december of next year. does anybody, anybody in this house really think that the united kingdom is going to be able to conclude a complex trade arrangement that to be united with the european union by the summer of next year so we the european union by the summer of next year so we can the european union by the summer of next year so we can have the security of knowing that we don't need that extension. quite frankly mr speaker they are living in a fa ntasy mr speaker they are living in a fantasy land if they do that. it is on that basis that i say to members all around the house in particular the opposition members that i know are attempting to vote with the government this evening. be careful. be careful. because what you are doing is you are writing a bank check to the prime minister and the vote leave campaign that runs this cove na nt to vote leave campaign that runs this

covenant to drive the united kingdom out of the european union on a military basis at the end of next year and friends, there is nothing you can do to stop it. i will give way. excellent point there butjust coming back to what he said about the timescales all the stuff that will be done by december, yesterday evening i was at the legislation committee for railway safety there was a technical paper and even then the government concession period was three years so i made the point yesterday, there were future arrangements done in a few months it's a joke. my honourable friend is correct. it simply is not feasible. it is not feasible mr speaker. the government can negotiate from scratch because let's remind ourselves that none of this

has yet started, it can't start yet. it has not started that process of the trade agreement and you look at the yea rs trade agreement and you look at the years that has taken place for you up years that has taken place for you up to conclude trade deals with other countries, mr speaker, it up to conclude trade deals with other countries, mrspeaker, it is up to conclude trade deals with other countries, mr speaker, it is a fa ntasy. other countries, mr speaker, it is a fantasy. and anybody that thinks thatis fantasy. and anybody that thinks that is possible is quite simply deluded. he is making a great argument about time in relation to despair but what it not the case that the smp scottish government when it introduced its continuity bill for the scottish parliament to prevent proper scrutiny of that legislation? that is the case mr speaker. they have had the guillotine on that bear and allowed for the bait and switch any amount he complains about that. i'll make that mess. to

continue bill. which was dictated by the legislation which was going to this place and was not an international treaty. that is completely bogus. comparison for anybody and no one that mr speaker, let me make some progress and i'll happily take interventions later on. i will make some progress. mr speaker it'll come as no surprise to this house that scottish national party m ps to this house that scottish national party mps will not vote for this legislation that 60 include the destructive brexit blue and i can meet all 35 of our mps to do so. we will be united. scotland of course ability to remain. 62% of those that billeted in scotland voted to remain. yet again, we are the

only pa rt remain. yet again, we are the only part of the united kingdom being taken out of the european union, out of the single market, out of the customs union against our will. england voted to beef, whales voted to leave. not in ireland is getting a different deal, there may be issues with it but that's mr speaker at the very least scotland at a competitive disadvantage. scotland is being sidelined and silenced but mr speaker, scotland will not be silenced. the smp are here to fight this toxic tory government, scotland's voice must be held and we must be respected. what about london?

i really have to question our conservatives thinking about these interventions before they make them? mr speaker scotland is a country thatis mr speaker scotland is a country that is what the difference is, it reminds me of the statement that was made by the prime minister that the pounds spend two mr speaker, our scottish parliament must be respected and if i can say today did the right honourable member, that's the right honourable member, that's the difference because cardiff and edinburgh must provide consent to despair and that's not the situation for the city of london. members should note that the scottish government has now launched in the

scottish parliament a legislative consent met —— memorandum for this bill. it concludes by recommending that the scottish parliament west holds legislative consent. mr speaker, we were told after our referendum in 2014 that we were to leave the uk, there was the respect agenda that we were an equal part —— partner and opinions would be respected yet here we are today our parliament and is disregarded and our rights as eu citizens to be taken from us. against our will.” will take them back to what he said, it's absolutely right mr speaker that we do scrutinise and ask ourselves is there a time for a new deal to be done in the next year before the time runs out? at the same places questioning that now question before it is prime minister coming back with a deal this time.

secondly the declaration gives an indication of where we want to go, work has been done and thirdly we are dealing with two aligned trading systems that work absolutely to get it today that need to diverge rather than divert systems that need to come together. it can be done and it's possible that i can ask them not to refer to somehow in a year plus plus time it is the default position to seek no deal. i will not be setting for that, i will not be supporting that. i have respect for the honourable member, i have to say though, that what has happened with the prime minister's the is it's worse than the previous prime minister deal. don't conflate what has happened over the course of the last few months. but the challenge is to doing a trade deal. but i will say today to the honourable member is that if the government does not negotiate a trade deal in a timely manner next year there is nothing he

can do, there is nothing i can do, and there is nothing a single member of this house can do. it does not give you the right to seek an extension because if the government has not asked for an extension by the semi that is it. you are out on a military basis and you are out of the rep and at the end of the story. mr speaker, the house will be aware that the first minister of scotland and wales with a joint letter to the prime minister by making him that a uk government is required to seek legislative consent from both for this bill. and the prime minister must make it clear that consent will be sought from the devolved institutions and the will of the devolved institutions will be respected. that after all was the promise made by the tory government to the people of scotland that our devolution settlements would be protected and respected, not

ignored. it promised mr speaker there has already been broken. and that shameful power grab at the time of the eu withdrawal acts 2018 which gave uk ministers the powers to destroy it and the competencies of this case parliament. i can see the minister shaking his head, this case parliament. i can see the ministershaking his head, i'm afraid that's a matter of fact. unilaterally and without agreement. mr speaker that was the first time ina2o mr speaker that was the first time in a 20 year history of devolution that any government legislated on devolved matters without scotland's consent, that shameful act is a direct downgrading of our devolution settle m e nts direct downgrading of our devolution settlements and eight disrespected those that militate in bed devolution referendum of 1997 and the scotland act that defined the limitations of listening minister's powers and this place could not interfere without consent. undermining the convention and

breaking once again the premises that the conservatives made to the scottish people. mr speaker, that the conservatives made to the scottish people. mrspeaker, smp members made a note of these actions andi members made a note of these actions and i had on backs before you threw me out of this house and i thought it was theirjudgement that scotland will not stand for this and speaker we will not. let's members on all benches be warned, supports the government today and he will show a disregard for the scottish parliament and the suffering we love the scottish people. there will be a price to be paid. it is worth noting ina price to be paid. it is worth noting in a letter to the prime minister that first ministers of scotland and wales were clear that that extension must be sought. would he also agree that this particular bill

is extremely damaging to people in laos and that the rights that he is talking about in relation to scotla nd talking about in relation to scotland should be absolutely afforded to you as this bid is damaging to the people of wales and to the farmers that many of us to represent and to those businesses andi represent and to those businesses and i think the honourable member for the opportunity to speak. thank you. she makes a very biannual -- valuable point and i want to think the wealth governments who have worked hand—in—hand with the scottish government because quite simply our rights are being diminished by what this government is doing and we have a responsibility not just across governments in the devolved areas but across party to what to get it to make these points. it is clear mr speaker at the devolved institutions must be given the full opportunity to scrutinise his legislation and the fact remains that the scottish parliament is on recess. it is having to be recalled because of the desire of this place

to run the legislation through. so here we are to be with this government pushing on ahead and people watching can see that chancing on the shouting and the complaining and laughing which get every single time that we are in this place from scottish conservative members. you think government is piling on her against the request of the scottish and welsh parliaments. mr speaker. the request of the scottish and welsh parliaments. mrspeaker. it the request of the scottish and welsh parliaments. mr speaker. it is clear that this prime minister has no respect for evolution. that should come as no surprise to us because the conservatives of the deposed abolition every step of the way, it does not change, and every step in the brexit process, tory governments have sought the scrutiny to persuade the government that they simply don't care. the prime minister does not care about process , minister does not care about process, about parliament or about the rule

of law. there have been some press reports that the snp are abandoning the idea of having a second referendum but in thatjoint letter in which, in that letter which he quoted thatjoint letter between the first minister of wales and pleased to say that they both called for that referendum and for an extension in order to allow that to happen. can he confirm that still the case and that still let the smp position is. we have been foursquare behind their peoples both over the course of last year and in the iceburgh at the ready in london on saturday so i stand by the words of our first minister in that letter.l number of people today have raised concerns about the lack of scrutiny and time to look at this bill and of course the honourable denman

pointed out that scotland has been ignored in this process, a nation that has ability to remain in the eu but that he share my concerns and amongst all of this he continued to forget conveniently for some perhaps at the fa ct conveniently for some perhaps at the fact is this referendum across the uk wasa fact is this referendum across the uk was a very narrow margin and then commissioner said election was broken and that has been swept under the carpet and i call into question the carpet and i call into question the legitimacy of the results.” think there are legitimate questions to be and send and my honourable friend is quite right, i'm conscious of time and i have taken interventions i am not fire but i wish to move on and conclude. mr speaker... that's the disrespect she showed to the scottish people, perhaps you should stand up and put

it on the record. that's an absolute disgrace. mr speaker it's an insult to democracy that the government are trying to push this bill through on a limited time and i urge members and those on the government benches to ask themselves is this really how they want things to be done? even they want things to be done? even the previous director of the affairs is stated in me that this bill would ta ke is stated in me that this bill would take more in four weeks so mr speaker. what has changed? moreover it was agreed this legislation must not be passed on to the uk government has published an economic impact assessment of the deal. on bbc breakfast on saturday, the secretary confirmed that no economic analysis has been done by this government by the final deal. mr speaker, that is the height of the responsibility. no economic analysis

ofa responsibility. no economic analysis of a deal that is going to have a fundamental impact on the lights of all our citizens. each and every one of us in this house knows because he is seeing the evidence and listen to the expert, there is no such thing asa the expert, there is no such thing as a good brexit. every scenario, brexit threatens jobs. it risks environmental standards. it risks workers' rights. it unravels the cooperation, the opportunities and importantly poses questions over the future values that the uk has fostered hand—in—hand with the european union. mr speaker, fostered hand—in—hand with the european union. mrspeaker, this government is closing its eyes. it is putting its head in the sand and it's helping that the sun comes out, the brexiteers talk about. that is reckless. it is foolish. the arrogance and incompetence of the government cannot and must not be allowed to go unchecked. our priority must be today to ensure that an extension is negotiated and

secured with the european union. so this house can scrutinise fully and properly the significant and lasting changes this legislation will need. in closing i want to touch on points as to why under no circumstances will the smp ever voted for brexit and they shameful bill. despite our effo rts and they shameful bill. despite our efforts to compromise this legislation will take us out of the european union and out of the single market and out of the customs union. with the prime minister being under a free—trade agreement, scott and's gdp would be around 6.1% or £9 billion worse off than if we stayed in the european union. that, mr speaker is a cash equivalent to £1600 per person. that is the cost of that prime minister's brexit for scotland. not an ardent businesses will have easier access to

the european single market while simultaneously enjoying unfettered access to the uk market. that a significant uncertainty as to how the economic impact may play out. this could see scottish business losing market share with direct competitors. supply chains may be reorganised to take advantage of northern ireland's preferential access to the single market and the location decisions in some cases. the smp is concerned that the removal of the commitment and environmental protection from the withdrawal agreement and the nonbinding political declaration opens the door to uk divergence from eu standards. the political declaration remains weak in relation to human rights. and in particular the importance of uk compliance with the importance of uk compliance with the echr. mr speaker, the importance of uk compliance with the echr. mrspeaker, scotland the importance of uk compliance with the echr. mr speaker, scotland will be worse off

unfairly disadvantage despite our to remain. i urge members do not set out scotland. it is sent to the will of the scottish people. but our our devolution settle m e nts people. but our our devolution settlements and respect our department —— our wishes. stand by the rights of the scottish people. businesses, farmers, fishermen, students, doctors, nurses, standby them and built to stop this disaster is the and give the scottish parliament and the scottish people there say. we will begin with a time limit of six minutes on each backbench speech that is how long that will last. this beer and indeed be agreement which it seeks to implement represent a compromise. it isa implement represent a compromise. it is a compromise that i believe is a cce pta ble is a compromise that i believe is acceptable but i won't conceal from the house of the fact that i think

for me and for many other members on this side and the names of that compromise are ones we find difficult and uncomfortable. but my decision to support the government tonight rests above all on what i am the great majority of members across the great majority of members across the house pledged to the electorate in 2016. that we would however we and however we both had respect the decision which they took in the referendum. i have to say that when i left to the barrel, much of it is fairly familiar territory. that's hardly a surprise since much of it in the most of the rectifies precisely the same negotiating text negotiated by my right honourable friend but of course one significant change has been in relation to northern ireland. as my honourable friend the member

for northern ireland. as my honourable friend the memberfor north dorsett setting an intervention earlier there are advantages to what is in this deal. we guarantee the open border on the island of ireland is something that is not only vital to allow people living in the border counties to continue but in my judgement is and shall also for the maintenance of peace and security in the border areas and indeed would be important for the maintenance of the union in the future because when i look at the demographics of northern ireland i as someone who passionately wants to see the union continue and grow stronger concludes that for that to happen the union will need to command the support or at very least the acquiescence of a large number of people who either identify themselves as irish or who

are none outlined in the affiliation. the creation of a hard partner across the irish sea is that maintaining the union? to come the point which the honourable gentleman alluded therefore i do that i want to say a few sentences about the consent mechanism. i do understand the disquiet that's been expressed from the unionist benches in this house about the design of that mechanism. i think mr speaker it is worth noting that that mechanism gives to stormont a power which is unique in europe. no other regional parliament or smb anywhere else in europe has the power unilaterally decided to and the application of a set of european union rules and

regulations to its territory. but having said that i do want to recognise the fact that elements of their new package ads are —— regards to northern ireland has genuine disquiet and anger in unionist communities across northern ireland. there is a perception that they have been treated unequally and that their place in the united kingdom has been made less secure. i asked my right honourable friends on the front bench urgently to seek ways in which to address those concerns and to assert the government commitment. the opinion of the unionist is greatly dismayed of what has happened but that's the honourable member recognise the issues for

businesses my constituency have... chris implications for them will be enormous government has not given full consideration and that impact the opinion and business.” full consideration and that impact the opinion and business. i do recognise the concerns expressed but i also know that the view expressed bya i also know that the view expressed by a business representatives organisations in northern ireland has generally been that parliament should go ahead with this deal in a cts should go ahead with this deal in acts of the legislation but they address the concerns which the honourable gentleman identifies them as having raised. i'll also ask my right honourable friends to act safely to minimise the impact which additional inspections and red tape required by the new policy is going to impose on northern ireland businesses. that might include financial support to enable them to buy and operate

new systems and effo rts buy and operate new systems and efforts to simplify checks and formfitting required and also the government to give priority and urgent priority to such measures of seeking agreement with the european union and other such arrangements that would enable the risks to northern ireland business to be minimised. if he will forgive me time is limited. i believe this house also needs to take account of the shift we are seeing in attitudes amongst other governments in the european union. sometimes i think collea g u es european union. sometimes i think colleagues and this house i guilty of wishful thinking. frankly those governments are no longer hanging on and hoping somehow that the united kingdom is going to change its mind. they are impatient, they are increasingly exasperated with all

political parties and that the ability of the uk political system to ta ke ability of the uk political system to take a decision of this matter. as far as the eu government are concerned, they want this brought to an orderly conclusion as soon as possible in a way that does as little harm as possible to the interest of the eu 27. that interest includes the future relationship, a constructive and close one, they like i believe most in this house wish to see between this country and the continuing european union. there are strategic challenges that face our country and every other european democracy. and we debate them when their spare time debating brexit whether it's climate change or terrorism or serious organised crime or mass movement of people and we are having european democracies to confront those challenges in the

context of a shifting balance of world power for the russia context of a shifting balance of world powerfor the russia which is aggressive and actively seeking to divide democratic european states a trainer which is estimated and offering both economic opportunity but also to model for government and society at odds with that which is embedded in our own that democratic and liberal values and united states unquestioning support for european security and for a rules —based international order. sir david eddington continuing care in that debate with the news this afternoon the government has said it would abandon its brexit been if mps vote down a three—day timetable to get it 2—part event that will be the second of the two votes. borisjohnson saying if the programme was rejected, then he would instead push for a general election. much more from westminster

coming up. hello, you're watching afternoon live. i'm simon mccoy here at westminster, where there's been a heated debate over borisjohnson's brexit deal. the prime minister says mps should back his bid to get the uk to leave the eu in nine days' time — or he'll abandon the bill and push for a general election. if this house backs this legislation, if we ratify this new deal, which i believe is profoundly in the interests of our whole united kingdom and our european friends, we can get brexit done and move our country on. a deal and a bill that fails to protect our rights and our natural world, fails to protectjobs and the economy, fails to protect every region and nation in the united kingdom. the liberal democrat leaderjo swinson is on herfeet right the liberal democrat leaderjo swinson is on her feet right now. this is the scene in

the house of commons now. those crucial votes come at 7pm this evening and we'll bring you them live. the death of 19—year—old harry dunn — british police will travel to the us to question the american diplomat‘s wife who's claimed diplomatic immunity. lawyers have clearly stated that the suspect wants to be personally interviewed by officers from northamptonshire police in order for them to see her and the devastation this has also caused her and her family. the younger brother of the manchester arena bomber salman abedi pleads not guilty to murdering 22 victims. coming up on afternoon live, all the sport with jane. hello. spying in the rugby world cup. england had coach eddiejones says someone cup. england had coach eddiejones says someone might have been filming england's training ahead of their semifinal match against the defendant champions, the all blacks. —— defending champions. thanks, jane. and we'll be joining you for a full update just after half—past. matt taylor has all the weather.

well, simon, a better day today across some southern areas with the sunshine out. cloudierfurther north. and over the next few days, more wet and windy weather is set to head our way. i'll have all the details in half an hour. thank you very much. also coming up, electric cars could be given green number plates and possible parking concessions in an attempt to drive up sales. hello, everyone. this is afternoon live live from westminster. good afternoon and welcome to westminster, where there's a heated debate in the commons behind me on the prime minister's brexit bill — and votes this evening will decide whether he will be able to live up to his "do or die" commitment to take the uk out of the european union in nine days' time.

if mps agree to it, they'll have three days to scrutinise the legislation — which runs to more than 100 pages. but opposition mps say that's not long enough to examine the small print — and they could scupper the government's plans this evening. borisjohnson told the commons if the timetable was rejected and the eu confirmed a delay to the 31 october exit, he would instead push for a general election. helen catt reports. the prime minister urging mps to back his withdrawal agreement bill — but along with reassurances, a threat. if parliament refuses to allow brexit to happen and instead gets its way and decides to delay everything until january, or possibly longer, in no circumstances can the government continue with this. and, with great regret, i must turn directly to the point that the honourable gentleman raises. with great regret, i must say that the bill will have to be called and we will have to go forward... much as the right honourable gentleman may not like it, we will have to go forward to a general election. the government is racing the clock to try to push the bill through both houses of parliament in just over a week, so it can keep its pledge

to leave the eu on the planned brexit day next thursday. it gives mps just three days to debate the detail — not long enough, say some, for such an important document that's over a hundred pages long. page after page of what amounts to nothing less than a charter for deregulation and a race to the bottom. a deal and a bill that fails to protect our rights and our natural world, fails to protectjobs and the economy, fails to protect every region and nation in the united kingdom. as it stands, mps will vote on the principle of the bill at second reading around 7pm tonight. if that passes, the vote on the timetable will be held straight afterwards. if both pass, then the bill will go immediately to the committee stage, where mps will try to amend or make changes to it. the bill deals with the technical nitty—gritty of turning what's in the withdrawal agreement into uk law. so, for example, it

sets out exactly how the uk will make payments to the eu. now, parliament has to pass this bill if the deal is to come to force. but if it doesn't, the default legal position is a no—deal brexit next thursday — but it's thought that in that case, the eu would most certainly grant a further extension. but borisjohnson has repeatedly made clear that's not what he wants. and if he abandons his attempts to get a deal passed and pushes for an election, expect him to try to direct the finger of blame firmly at parliament. helen catt, bbc news, westminster. it has been, at times, a heated debate. let's just go it has been, at times, a heated debate. let'sjust go back it has been, at times, a heated debate. let's just go back into the chamber, because the democrat leader jo swinson is on herfeet. let's just hear from her. rather than the big picture of what is in our interests as a country. this is not a small decision. this is a big decision about our future. we live in an uncertain world, will wear in the east we have the rise of putin,

the east we have the rise of putin, the rise of china and in the west, we have the uncertain and unprintable duplicitous president trump in the white house, and as he says, in number ten downing street we have britton trumper. should we in these circumstances go it alone? —— britain trump. should we work with our neighbours, where we have a community... where we have much more clout on the international stage, where we have a market for businesses without tariffs, without regulations and with the ability to stand up to the tech companies to protect our consumers. where we can address the climate emergency, with much better abilities and take a coordinated action to leave the world on something that threatens our very world on something that threatens our very survival together, the

future is brighter. this is not about institutions. this is about who we are. wanting to stay in europe is about choosing the kind of country that we want to be. open or closed. generous or selfish. standing united with our friends we re standing united with our friends were standing alone in the world. saying no to the bully boy populists and the kremlin and the white house, or following their examples, fighting for our children's future or closing off their opportunities to live, work and study across the eu. 0n to live, work and study across the eu. on these benches, we liberal democrats are clear. we will continue to stand for what is best for our country, to let the public have the final say on this bad brexit deal and give them the chance to choose to remain in the european union. the most signed petition in parliament history, 6 million

people saying they want to revoke article 50, hundreds of thousands marching on the streets on saturday for a people's vote. people are joining the liberal democrats in record numbers because together, we can stop brexit. and whatever the result is tonight, this is not over. i will never is tonight, this is not over. i will never give up on is tonight, this is not over. i will never give up on our is tonight, this is not over. i will never give up on our children's future. thank you, mr speaker. it is a pleasure to follow the right honourable lady, the leader for the liberal democrats, and i do give her and her party reddit for consistency. no one is ever been in any doubt as to where they stand on theissue any doubt as to where they stand on the issue —— her party for their consistent. that is not the case for the labour party. their leader actually supporting leaving their opinion for a long time. thought an election on which to respect the result of the referendum

and who consistently, said consistently a second referendum was out of the question. i should say to the house, members have already been aware that the honourable member for cardiff west, i hope we would just pause for a second as i refer to them, forced to abandon his 60th birthday party asa to abandon his 60th birthday party as a result of the house meeting on saturday. but what the house they not be aware of is the honourable memberfor not be aware of is the honourable member for cardiff west were born on processing the same day, and as a result of the programme, i have now postponed my own 60th birthday party. however, isuspect, postponed my own 60th birthday party. however, i suspect, unlike the honourable gentleman opposite, i regard it as a small price to pay and one that i am very willing to pay if the result is that we get brexit done. members have

said that this legislation is being rushed through, and there hasn't been time to look at it properly. i can say that i have been privileged to serve asa memberof that i have been privileged to serve as a member of the select committee on exiting the european union since 2016. and we have spent an awful lot of time scrutinising the process by which the uk will leave the european union. we looked at the withdrawal agreement, as originally proposed by my right honourable friend, the memberfor my right honourable friend, the member for maidenhead, and of course we have ta ken member for maidenhead, and of course we have taken numerous sessions of evidence to examine further. in many parts of the withdrawal agreement, it is similarto parts of the withdrawal agreement, it is similar to that which was put forward by the previous prime minister. the major

differences between the agreement we are looking at today is the changes made to the northern ireland critical and second to the direction of travel for our future training agreements. like the prime minister, the foreign secretary, the leader of the foreign secretary, the leader of the house and my right honourable friend, idid the house and my right honourable friend, i did not support the government in the first two meaningful votes that occurred, but idid so meaningful votes that occurred, but i did so on the third one because i wanted us to fulfil the promise that had been made that we would leave the european union by the 29th vote to -- 29th of —— 29th of march. -- 29th of march. ijust wondered if my right honourable friend was aware the provisions made to follow entry sovereignty and to deal with the protection of vital national interests would not have appeared in the previous bill ——

parliamentary sovereignty. i am grateful to the previous bill —— parliamentary sovereignty. i am gratefulto my honourable friend because i was about to say why i regarded this bill as considerably in improving on the previous agreements, and he is right to point that out. but it did come of the agreement we are considering this afternoon, does address a number of concerns, including the so—called backstop in the risk of this country could be induced indefinitely into membership in the customs union. remember one of the great prizes of brexit, being able to negotiate... thank you, mr speaker. he will, and he is actually alluded to the fact, the new deal brought forward by the prime minister... going to keep an eye and what is going on but let's get the thoughts of our chief political correspondent, vicki

young. this afternoon, coming from downing street rather than inciting chamber, that boris johnson include street rather than inciting chamber, that borisjohnson include listing if he does not get what he wants tonight, he is going to call the whole thing off. there are two votes. the first one is on second reading on the bill, a vote on whether the bill and plummeting his withdrawal agreement —— implementing his withdrawal given gets ahead. i think i will get through. the second one is more controversial. it is the programme motion. it is the timetable. the government wants to get the three by thursday, which is incredibly speedy for these things. he is saying, if i don't get my way on the timetable, i'm going to pull the bill complete be. he also added, if you vote this down in the eu delay or extend article 50 until january or beyond, that is when i will pull the bill. actually, the government cannotjust pull a bill. it will be there, it has gotten

second reading, it just it will be there, it has gotten second reading, itjust will not progress to the second stage of. the question is, is it an empty threat? the answer is yes. but the answer is, ithink the answer is yes. but the answer is, i think down the street would not mind a general election. they could win the election and come back with a majority. either way, they say it is time for the prime minister. at the end, he is making a calculation. does he pull the whole thing? do or die, we are leaving october 31, his problem is going back on that. if he is to go back on that, he has to show he has been forced into it by parliament or potentially by the eu. the question is tonight, all eyes on the eu and whether they grant an extension and how long it is. the complaint for mps in the house, it is too long,

there is not enough time. this no deal trapdoor we have heard about this is the main sticking point here. i think so. there been some concerns, people saying, why do we amended for a referendum, why don't we amended for a customs union? when it comes to this, and just to remind people, if this deal was to get through in the next few weeks, we then going to transition period which is until the end of december next year, and then there's an option to extend that transition period when nothing changes, we have left legally but nothing changes. you can extend that for another two yea rs. you can extend that for another two years. the question is, who is in charge of that process? is it government or is it parliament? there is some unhappiness about that, because what people are saying is at that point, if the free trade in women government wants is not been talked about, has not been discussed, has not been agreed, then we leave without that agreement in place. some people are saying we need a safeguard for that. you move

everything from a cliff edges, and falling out on wto rules. all that would move to the year after or the year after. cliff edges, crunch days... actually, this is a crunched day, isn't it? simon, ithink something will happen tonight. mps could back a brexit deal any form. this is the closest we have ever been. to stephanie closer than any of theresa may's efforts, and this isa of theresa may's efforts, and this is a big moment. we should not gloss over that. if the government is able to get the houses of parliament to back it with your alderman on brexit, that would be quite something. vicki, think you very much —— back a withdrawal agreement on brexit. well, we know that the government will abandon its brexit bill if mps vote down its three—day timetable to get it through parliament —

and the eu confirms a delay. the prime minister himself announced that in parliament earlier. the withdrawal agreement bill which mps are being asked to consider is complex and long. so let's get an explanation of what's in the legislation — and the potential hurdles ahead at westminster for it to become law — from our reality check correspondent chris morris. well, we know the new withdrawal agreement — which specifies the terms on which the uk will leave the eu — has now been negotiated between borisjohnson's government and the 27 other eu countries. so, it's a draft international treaty. and the purpose of the withdrawal agreement bill is to turn that treaty into uk law and to give the government permission to ratify it. so now the prime minister needs to win the backing of mps several times in short order, to turn his agreement into legislation. part of the bill gets rid of the need to have an additional meaningful vote on the deal — the legislation would be enough. the prime minister wants to get this bill through by the 31st of october to keep his pledge to leave the eu by then. if he had a comfortable majority in the house of commons, he mightjust be able to do that. but he's going to find that very difficult, first of all because this is a hugely constitutionally significant piece of legislation that mps are going to want to scrutinise

the details of very closely. more than that, mps are going to want to cause political trouble for the government, they will be trying to insert amendments to change the direction of travel. so, what are those amendments? some mps want to add the requirement of holding another referendum on brexit, others insist the aim after brexit should be to negotiate uk membership of a customs union with the eu. but what does the bill actually cover already? among other things, it sets out exactly how the uk will make "divorce bill" payments to the eu for years to come. it ensures that eu law will continue to apply in the uk as long as a post—brexit transition period lasts. it gives some idea of how the new protocol on ireland — setting up a de facto customs and regulatory border between northern ireland and great britain — will work in practice. and it makes the withdrawal agreement in some respects "supreme" over other areas of uk law. in other words, it gets into some controversial topics. that's why the bill is tricky

for the government — sensitive issues, such as what happens at the end of the transition, can be fudged a bit in political communications. but here, they have to be set down in precise legal language for all to see. the government has tabled a programme motion, which is a timetabling motion which provides for the bill to get through the house of commons extremely quickly — by the end of thursday this week. that is where a lot of the political controversy is going to be today. the government is saying, let's get brexit done and get the bill through, and mps will be saying — some mps will be saying — we don't want to vote for this programme motion because we want time to scrutinise it properly. yes, the government says it's time to get brexit done, but if it can't get the withdrawal agreement bill through parliament in time, then the default position is currently that the uk would leave the eu without a deal on 31st october. but under the terms of the benn act, the prime minister has now sent a letter to the european council president donald tusk, making a formal request

for an extension to the brexit process until 31st january 2020. the eu will watch events in westminster closely over the next few days, before deciding how to respond to that extension request. tensions increasing here at westminster. indeed, oliver letwin, who's in them in on saturday has meant we are where we are today, he has just tweeted. .. —— whose amendment on saturday. so, a lot of people beginning to realise that the government could be serious with that threat ofjust pulling the deal. we can talk now to stephen kelly from the campaigning organisation, manufacturing northern ireland. he joins me from belfast now. stephen, there was some confusion from the brexit secretary as to exactly what would happen in terms of goods from northern

ireland. indeed, he got it wrong initially. are you confident that the government has a plan in terms of the customs border and where it is and how it is going to work? clearly, the front minister was rushing to try to conclude some agreement with the eu over the period of the last couple of weeks, that resulted in a deal that was struck at the end of last week. and we in the business community in northern ireland have been working to try to get some transparency first and some clarity and leading to some commitments from government about what this programme will actually entail. what we do see is there is going to be enormous levels of co nsta nt com plexity there is going to be enormous levels of constant complexity that the northern ireland economy and consumer will have to bear, with the rest of the uk leaving the eu. what the government does now, whether it is... the difficulty

for you is, and there is confirmation, extra paper will be required to trade between northern ireland and great britain. absolutely. those most keen to brexit, they set our trading regimes as we know and enjoy them today will continue and exactly the same way, but the reality of brexit is beginning to bite. the reality of brexit, what tricks it looks like, has been made ultimately clear now, and not just for many factors has been made ultimately clear now, and notjust for many factors and food companies here in northern ireland but also many factors and food companies and others that trade right across the rest of the uk. bad dealfor northern ireland but is that still better than a no deal? absolutely. the entire business, trade union, civic society here in northern ireland are very clear, no deal is not an option for northern ireland. this deal is not perfect. it is not one we would have necessarily struck ourselves.

however, it is significant better than no deal. and really now, we're looking at parliament and we are looking at parliament and we are looking at parliament and we are looking at government to ensure that protections are in place for the northern ireland community and economy. we need to irrigation some that we need compensation and we need legislation to ensure that our position in the rest of uk market has been gained a. what they are basically saying is, trust us. do you? it is hard to trust when things are rushing so quickly. the government is really on a fast—track here in effort to try and get this legislation through and to try to leave the eu by the of october. we will trust government as best we possibly can, but what we really need is a firm commitment that the legislation will be put in place to protect northern irelandposition within the rest of uk marketplace. very good to talk to you. stephen kelly therefrom manufacturing northern ireland. hillary ben is on

his feet... they did one before that showed the free—trade giving is the second worst outcome for the economy after a no deal and they don't really wa nt after a no deal and they don't really want to point that out. any final point i want to make is about clause 31, because it links to this point about the economic impact of the political declaration. clause 31 deals with oversight of negotiations on the future relationship. and i say to the house, it appears to give members some oversight, some say over the nature of the negotiations on the future relationship, but clause 31, 33 c, referring to the minister's obligation to have a statement and objectives on the future relationship, must be consistent with the political declaration of the 17th of october. and i civilly point out, if in one, two, three years time, the house

realises that the objectives of that kind of free—trade agreement are not in our economic interests because he finally realised the damage it will due to the economy, and we have seen what businesses have set and expressed concerned about, the way this clause is worded at the moment, there is no opportunity for parliaments to get the government to change those objectives and i don't think that we should accept the bill on that issue as it is worded currently. thank you, mr speaker, and it's a pleasure to follow the right honourable gentleman. i am conscious this evening that we are at the end of a long process in which we were all very tired and very weary, and also we have said some quite hard things about each other, including within our own political parties, and sol certainly would not want this evening to pass without acknowledging firstly that those who come forward and argue that we should leave on these terms have a perfectly valid point to make. and

indeed, to honour the 26 and referendum result, they have a powerful argument —— 2016 referendum result. the difficulty i have in looking at this bill is that i try to cast my mind a little bit forward to cast my mind a little bit forward to what this bill can do and cannot do, and! to what this bill can do and cannot do, and i think there's a slight tendency, although this bill is undoubtedly... to lose sight of some of its realities. i listen very carefully to the honourable lady who said she is going to vote for the deal but wants to change it. we have to understand, because this is an international treaty, actually, the scope for changing the church he is out of the question. of course we can put in some safeguards, indeed we can put in a referendum, which i will vote for legion i want to

burn the house without this evening. we can change it in our domestic law but it is a little bit like a letter of wishes to 1's children. there is absolutely no guarantee the children will decide to carry it out. if if i think and! will decide to carry it out. if if i think and i can understand my right honourable friend, the prime minister, wants to follow—up this passage of this legislation by a general election, i think i for one in this house, i think it has to come back to reconsider the issues which this withdrawal agreement and bill raise in the course of next year. and nothing that we do confessor the rights of this house to change completely the expression of contingents we may decide to enact —— we can now fetter. this bill reveals a number of things one can destroy best truths. the first one is the intention of the

government, both in the treaty ending the way that the is drafted, is to take us to a free—trade given which would in reality be very hard to negotiate and will have to be negotiated in the course of next year —— negotiated in the course of next year——a negotiated in the course of next year —— a free—trade agreement. and asa year —— a free—trade agreement. and as a consequence, the risks on crashing out at the end of 2020 are very great because otherwise, we will have to lengthen transition, which is described as being vassalage. and indeed, it's a form of vassalage. the reality is, we are bound by the rules and cannot influence them. i see the risk, some of the argument is being presented, this is going to end. i fear we are actually postponing these issues in actually postponing these issues in a way that is going to continue to define us even though i it would very much like it that we did not. i give way... thank

you, mr speaker. i am enormously grateful. the right under one gentleman has been a great friend to northern ireland for a very long period of time. he has been a great defender of the good friday belfast agreement since it was signed 2! years ago, and so i would be enormously grateful to him if he would explain to the house his concerns, if any, about... we will keep an eye on that debate for you. it continues until around seven p:m., when we are expecting that vote. for coverage here on bbc. huw edwards taking it through a special as well. now it's time for a look at the weather with matt taylor. hello. let's take a look at what is in store for today and the rest of tomorrow. a sunny and to the day. one or two showers around english channel coast. we have got rain

coming and going as we finish the day across the far north and west of scotland. most will finish the day dry, but into tonight, the rain will still be there. maybe into the west of northern ireland. the odd heavier burst possible. most places stick with a drier theme. winds light to stores the south and east, and this is where we are susceptible to one or two mist and fog patches. a touch of frost around, with temperatures in lowerfigures, especially of frost around, with temperatures in lower figures, especially away from towns and cities. into wednesday, mist and fog, some sunny spells. many places will be dry. the west of scotland, northern ireland, rain here will become heavy and persistent during the day, a company with a strengthening win. temperatures of 12—15. this is bbc news, our latest headlines. there's been a heated debate over borisjohnson's brexit deal and it doesn't look like it's

going to let up any time soon. the prime minister says mps should back his bid to get the uk to leave the eu in nine days' time, or he'll abandon the bill and push for a general election. this is the scene in the house of commons now, those crucial votes come at 7 o'clock this evening and we'll bring you them live. the death of 19 year old harry dunn, british police will travel to the us to question the american diplomat‘s wife who's claimed diplomatic immunity. she wants to be interviewed in the younger brother of the manchester arena bomber, salman abedi, pleads not guilty to murdering 22 victims. sport now on afternoon live with jane dougall, and england head coach eddie jones is claiming his side have been spied

on ahead of their rugby world cup semi final with new zealand he semi final with new zealand was quite relaxed abo this. he was quite relaxed about all of this. where england are training in the lead up to their semifinal rugby world cup against new zealand, there are apartment blocks around the page and jones has said it looked as though there is someone filming england from one of the facts. the implication that it might have been someone implication that it might have been someone from the museum into camp howeverjones also said it could have been a farmer filming. if he playing mind games ahead of the few to match against new zealand? you can make up your own mind. this is where england are training and you can see the apartment blocks there. we had it before. ajones went on to say the defending champions, the all blacks would have all the pressure on them that it was tough at the world cup and that that amount —— mental skills coach would be the ha rd est mental skills coach would be the hardest working man injapan. that exciting talk. jones was asked if he had ever espied on any other training sessions in the past and he said yes.

i have not done it since 2001. we used to do it. you just don't need to do it any more because you see everything. you can watch everyone's training on youtube or whatever there is, everything is out there. there's no value in doing that sort of thing now. absent easy well. that's quite an admission. in the other semifinal, whales are playing south africa on sunday and where the defence coach had said that captain is vital to the hopes of getting to the final. at 34 years old he's the oldest member of the world cup squad and his country's record holder at 22 but edwards thinks their luck is playing better than ever. he's six foot six, he is fast, he's unbelievably competitive

and he's unbelievably tough, he's a very brave person and he sets the example for everybody. he's developed and i think he's playing better than he ever has and he's one of the best players i've ever coached. it champions league returns tonight. last year's runners are in desperate need of a way notjust in this competition they face belgrade at home. tottenham have one plane from too much so far but their last game in the competition saw them humiliated 7—2. the legal form has been correct, the manager admitted hisjob is on the line if been correct, the manager admitted his job is on the line if you been correct, the manager admitted hisjob is on the line if you can't turn their luck around. however he says that goes with the territory. why do you think that i

have half white, and we pay attention is needed to improve performance and if we don't improve our performance next the risk. let's take a look at the other fixtures in the champions league tonight. amongst them, manchester city who're in action against italian side atalanta. city have made a perfect start in their group with 2 wins from 2. great britain's rugby league side were evacuated from their team hotel in auckland after a major fire at a neighbouring convention centre. they've moved to hamilton, where they'll play tonga on saturday in the first of four test matches on their three—week tour. jackson hastings is one of the australia—born players selected by head coach wayne bennett — he was the super league's man of steel last season and helped inspire salford to a first grand final. the home nations haven't combined to tour as great britain since 2007, they're also facing new zealand twice and papua new guinea. anthony crolla's final fight

before retirement will be against the spaniard frank urquiaga next month. the former world lightweight champion will be fighting for the vacant wba continental title in his home city at the manchester arena on the 2nd of november. that's where he made his professional debut 13 years ago. the 32 year old challenged for the world title earlier this year but lost to vasyl lomachenko. that's all the sport for now. back to you simon. it was good to get some support in there it's a busy day investment step. let's go back into the chamber. sam is on his feet for the dup, let us hearfrom him. that move towards taking back something, let's look at the facts about northern ireland. we will be left in the arrangement whereby eu law on all trade, goods, etc will be applied to northern ireland. we

will be in applied to northern ireland. we will beina applied to northern ireland. we will be in a situation where we would be subject despite what the prime minister says to the full implementation of the eu customs regulations. and that means that goods moving from gbm to northern ireland will be subject to declarations, checks, tariffs being imposed and now we find out yesterday that despite the promise of unfettered access to the uk market, the checks will occur in the opposite direction for those thousands of firms in northern ireland who currently exploit to gb don't face any impediments and their face them. i will give way. thank you for giving me. he will know that three have had a stream of northern ireland businessmen and farmers representatives come to the committee baking that treated for a

beer and that that is the right thing for the united kingdom and 50s and hand in south ireland. that is right but they're one thing that they always demanded was that we have unfettered access to the market which is lme market. we sell five times more to gb than be due to the irish republic. and yet we are now finding asa irish republic. and yet we are now finding as a result of this and we would be subject to those checks. should we not also reenter the bindings that a widget maker in northern ireland would have access over the border and into the republic but also would be able to ta ke republic but also would be able to take advantage of any trade deals united kingdom as a whole was able to secure with their countries, isn't that an advantage? that brings me onto the next point. because although the prime minister has claimed that is the case the withdrawal agreement makes it clear

thatis withdrawal agreement makes it clear that is not the case. access will only be available according to article five, paragraph one, will only be available depending on whether or not the agreement or date trade dear conflicts with eu protocols. if he can fix conflicts with eu protocols. if he canfix up conflicts with eu protocols. if he can fix up the protocols and this agreement provided the agreements do not prejudice the product in the only cases we can take part in their free trade arrangements at the government may set off with other countries. on the issue of sovereignty, where part of the eu regulations, where part of the eu customs code, we have got checks than the irish border, we are subject in future to any trade deals united kingdom does a subject of whether or not that conflicts with eu product and indeed the prime minister said if you had a free trade arrangement would allow it to resolve but i can

is made clear that the eu agree on that free trade agreement to erase us time we take the benefits of that free trade arrangement. that's the first reason. i will not give way. that is theissue reason. i will not give way. that is the issue of sovereignty that night and hired would be left as a semi detached part of the united kingdom and of course in the long run the whole focus of attention removed from my to dublin. will we have before us in europe when these regulations come through? who will we have to speak for us in europe when customs rules are affecting us? we won't have the uk covenant and increasing the focus will be to the dublin covenant. the second argument to be made if you can vote their way out of it. of course the mechanism

for ability our way out of a place now a simple majority will. i never thought i would hear a prime minister who has insisted that to be adhered to the rules of their belfast agreement that an essay and by the way they're very central premise of the belfast agreement of course you know the first issue that was addressed in the belfast agreement what kind of checks and bala nces agreement what kind of checks and balances do you have that can protect both communities when it comes to the operation of the smb? the very first issue that was dealt with, here is what the belfast agreement said. in order to get those protections and in order to ensure that all sections of committee have participated and work together, arrangements will be put in place to ensure that key decisions are taken on a cross community basis. now there is no marquee decision or no more

divisive decision than this issue of our relationship with the eu and yet, the safety valve which there is in the safety valve which there is in the belfast agreement, the payment is to said its taken away because it's a reserved matter anyway. these are not reserved matters, indeed the very are not reserved matters, indeed the very reason are not reserved matters, indeed the very reason why you have a whole section of the barrel about what the northern ireland assembly can and can't do it because they are dissolved matters. and yet on these devolved matters, on this one issue, the government has agreed to take away the essential principle of consent and that, i can tell you, will do damage when it comes to the operation of the assembly in the future. it can't be selective like that and it can't be selective like this. the last one i nearly choked on the prime minister stated. he told us well, don't worry about it because all of these changes which will affect night in ireland will be late to the touch.

it's not really a boundary, it's just a late to the touch. it's not really a boundary, it'sjust a light late to the touch. it's not really a boundary, it's just a light touch regulations. light touch regulations which would require firms to meet regulations lambaste sell goods let have to pay for goods that come from a part of their own country which incur costs on them, at least i will have had some respect had the prime minister said i had have had some respect had the prime ministersaid i had a have had some respect had the prime minister said i had a deadline on the 31st of october and i have to get around to it and therefore having to make concessions on the night and ‘s concessions i would understand but what i don't take his the prime minister thinks i can't read the agreement that is being published and i can't see in that agreements what the impact has ended because of fact. in a bed to accommodate the number of colleagues that would be a foreman at the limits on backbench species —— speakers with immediate effect. as you can see it for a four—minute the limits on backbench species —— speakers with immediate effect. as you can see it fit he could be big

there some e—mail send their writing idea on the boat later tonight. not happy at all. us what's hot and what's not in the business news. first a look at the headlines on afternoon live. boris johnson confirms that he will abandon his brexit legislation for the time being — if mps reject his three—day timetable for getting the bill through the commons. the death of 19 year old harry dunn — british police will travel to the us to question the american diplomat‘s wife who's claimed diplomatic immunity. the younger brother of the manchester arena bomber, salman abedi, pleads not guilty to murdering 22 victims. here's your business headlines on afternoon live. the office space provider wework is reportedly being taken over by its biggest shareholder. the investment by the japanese investment firm softbank values wework at 6 billion pounds. it's expected they would force out the compa ny‘s controversial founder adam neumann after he tried to sell shares at a valuation

of 38 billion pounds. holidays to the egyptian resort of sharm el sheikh are an option again after the government lifted a ban on flights. it's four years since a bomb killed everyone on board a russian airliner shortly after takeoff from the nearby airport, which was criticised for lax security. the government says that security has been improved and the travel company tui says it will resume direct flights. the home rentals site airbnb says there's a chance it could face legal action after hmrc started looking into its tax affairs. one of its uk companies processes payments between hosts and guests in most of its international markets. airbnb says it follows the rules and pays all the tax it owes in the places in which it does business. let's start with that change in government policy which puts sharm el sheikh back on the map after four years. the travel operator tui says it will try to get direct flights back

up and running as soon as possible. easyjet told us that it's looking at the opportunity to start flying to and from what was one of britain's most popular winter sun destinations. but will travellers want to go there again in significant numbers. have they put those security concerns behind them? simon calder is the independent‘s travel editor. can sharm retake the position it once had in the market? let us go back for years. we had that terrible crash involving a metro jet charter flight to st. petersburg, over 200 people died and it invades the british government imposed a ban on uk airlines flying to and from sharm el—sheikh. that winter it happened right at the start of the season, half a million british holiday—makers are planning to go there and it's really knocked out the winter season of course for the last three years and it's now u nfortu nately the last three years and it's now unfortunately the liberty just

the last three years and it's now unfortunately the libertyjust come a little too late to be start fights ina a little too late to be start fights in a sensible time for this winter season. there is absolutely no doubt that there is huge demand to attend to sharm el—sheikh, a lot of british people had been going across the gulf of syria instead but it's not really offering the same kind of experience. they were certainly be demand there, it simply a question of when airlines and tour operators can get planes in order to fight people the five hours or so to sharm el—sheikh. what dowe know about the new security protocols ? this has been going on for some yea rs, after this has been going on for some years, after six months after the tragedy and the band came into effect, the egyptian government basically said we spent $40 million approximately on improved security, and have a look but since then the

department for transport and the uk government has said we are not satisfied. everything i have heard suggests standards are not the best anywhere on the african continent and i'vejust anywhere on the african continent and i've just been speaking early this afternoon to the egyptian ambassador who was furious that the band had been in place for so long and causing so much damage. but now of course he is delighted that the british travellers will be coming back in. it would be slightly different of course the germans, italians, ukrainians sitting the vacuum italians, ukrainians sitting the va cu u m left italians, ukrainians sitting the vacuum left by the brits but he did say there is plenty of room for british people and they will get a very british people and they will get a very warm welcome. british people and they will get a very warm welcome. in terms of risk, clearly the foreign office still warns of terrorism, we have seen that side the sinai peninsula a number of terrorist attacks aimed at tourists and i think most people willjudge the risks

to be tolerably well and also tend to be going back as soon as well and also tend to be going back as soon as i can. how big a deal was it for the travel industry that it was taken off the map? the chapel is actually find somewhere else to go? it was really challenging even for monarch which collapsed shortly afterwards, a year and a half after it, sorry two years after this came into effect. sharm el—sheikh was a fantastic answer to the question what shall we do with our pains in the ring to? nice, long flying time, effectively it could send a plane out and make lots of moneyjust on a return trip to sharm el—sheikh and when people couldn't go there it was very difficult for the airlines they moved back to the west and mediterranean to and but accommodation processes high—end competition was so intense that they started losing a lot of money. so it

was not the only problem for the monarch and it was not the only problem for thomas cook, that's a very big management issues at both companies but it certainly did not help and now we will see airlines moving back and in a big way not this winter but next winter and said to mejet to it this winter but next winter and said to me jet to it will also this winter but next winter and said to mejet to it will also be this winter but next winter and said to me jet to it will also be very interested in taking british people some way the sun is absolutely guaranteed all through the winter. thank you very much forjoining us. markets now, a mixed picture on the main ftse100 index. political developments mostly on the minds of investors. ftse was trading lower earlier today but is now in positive territory. just eat is one of the biggest gainers after it received a takeover approach, which it's rejected. the consumer goods firm reckitt benckiser is one of the biggest fallers after it said it was less optimistic about sales. and the pound is on the decline again, although still considerably higher than it

was a month ago. it's much stronger than it was a week ago and much stronger than a month ago. other companies making just today. it came to an astronomical increase in its share price today. just after it was talking about merging with its dutch arrival take away thought, we heard that there was a takeover approach from another company but it has rejected that but investors are still excited about what it means it for its fortunes and the consumer goods firm which makes a whole host of goods, it was one of the bigger foils on the ftse100 today after it said it was less optimistic about how it's sales are going to perform. let us talk to supriya menon is senior multi—asset strategist at pictet asset management. thank you for being with us.

what are markets making of brexit proceedings we work: who are the winners and losers in this deal? even the context that you mention, the relief writing but he had seen them starting all over the past week or two, that is really because the biggest source of risk which is been no dear brexit has been taken off the table and the question has become closer to the 130 mark against the dollar is how much more upset can we expect some of the pound digesting a little bit of that move before we move ahead from here even move before we move ahead from here even after the move if we look at positioning which is basically where investors are positioned on the starting that's still under way. sally think there is still room for a bit more of an upside in the pound but in terms of the medium—term independent the fact is the scope of the future relationship with the eu

still remains very much an open question that will depend on the next government so probably all of the evaluation this country has seen will not come out. but he had been constructed on the pound and constructive i get the assets as well and it's worth noting that while we had seen a significant rally in the pound that has not been matched by uk equities. its biggest shareholder is taking a majority sta ke shareholder is taking a majority stake in the company after this ordeal of an attempt at a vocation, an astronomical evaluation. who do you think i winners and losers and what we have learned today? that's an interesting question. we work has been dealt a lifeline for now a temporary lifeline and keep in mind it had two options, either being the public markets potentially forj.p. morgan but that would have come at a

really punitive rate of interest so they say yes, adam newman had to give upa they say yes, adam newman had to give up a team with a cost in terms of voting shares and that's been significantly evaluated but the were stuck between two not very good options said this seems to be more palatable for now. for softbank this is still not a huge use of in terms of that it remains a vast and one portion of that so not particularly given the marginally sell yes. the bigger question has to be for investors as we look at this i deleted that these private market valuations and the question really is price discovery. what is the mechanism here when we cannot really benchmark the value of these companies in the private realm for a short public markets have not been willing to absorb valuations that are out of step with reality?

i think investors having come out of this much wiser and gain more information about price discovery are the winners from all of this. thomas cook: are lessons really likely to be learned in terms of the oversight of auditors? ido i do think that in this case as well as some others they would be my speech any about mixing up of auditing and other forms of consulting services which is essentially what will be happening here in the prior auditor if you think about the competition market authority earlier this year having avoided calling for a break—up of the big auditing firms did actually i'd expect political

interest from here on. thank you for being with us today. that's a from me. that's all the business news. now it's time for a look at the weather with matt taylor. cloud amounts may vary but those parts of the uk are pretty trite today. we are sandwiched between two areas of low pressure, one which is producing ferocious conditions apart across eastern parts of spain into the southwest offence and another whichjust to the southwest offence and another which just to the north of us making for a wet day, continuing to come and go here as we go into the evening but most other parts would be tried, the deal of sunshine across seven areas a few coastal showers down towards the english channel and south—westerly winds temperatures are up yesterday. away from the south, light winds here could be an issue morning. if think other to the night here temperatures are at around ten or 11

degrees compared to foster plus some parts of england and wales as we start tomorrow morning. mrfrog of england and wales as we start tomorrow morning. mr frog will clear and sunny spells but clouds pushing and sunny spells but clouds pushing and once again that would bring rain to the southeast later on but across western scotland and northern ireland it's at the will get wet and windy are as we go through it persistent as you finish the afternoon and go into the evening rush hour. other parts will stay dry and temperature is similar to today. as you go through wednesday into thursday we will see this area of low pressure start to push its way across south and easements but then another one living in from the southeast corner. that makes thursday a cloudy day with outbreaks of ram some of which become persistent across the east anglia and the southeast but up to the north and west and we showers and the wind strengthening, and therefore screens, southwest scotla nd therefore screens, southwest scotland and around the irish sea in particular. put to be dropped later in the day as cold air starts to push its way in. that will push across all parts of the country that will push across all parts of the

country to thursday night and friday morning meeting for a teddy start but now they are trying to wake at three northwards in between those two we see another weather fronts which is set to bring some more persistent rain. even though friday sta rts persistent rain. even though friday starts bright from any across england, wales it will cloud over and rain becomes heavy and persistent across many parts of northern ireland later and therefore screens. notice the change in temperature. it could be an issue friday and saturday could be therefore screens and we could see fighting, stepped into the forecast.

stop today at five, we're live at westminster where mps are due

to take part in two crucial votes dictating the future of the brexit process. arriving at the commons today the prime minister was facing a vote on his own brexit legislation and on the parliamentary time to debate the bill. a clear majority in the country is now imploring us to get brexit done in this house of commons. i say to the house, let us therefore do it and let us do it now and tonight. but for labour, jeremy corbyn insisted the government was not allowing nearly enough time for mps to consider such an important bill. it's an abuse of parliament, and a disgraceful attempt to dodge accountability, scrutiny and any kind of proper debate. the first vote here at westminster is due in a couple of hours. ministers warn they will withdraw the brexit bill if they lose the timetable motion, and they'll push for a general election.