minister. >> with permission, mr. speaker, i'd like to make a statement on progress with our renegotiation. the house has now had the chance to study the documents published by the european council yesterday. i believe this is an important milestone in the process of reform, renegotiation and referendum that we set out in our manifesto, and which this government is delivering. we've legislated for that referendum and we are holding that renegotiation. so let me set out the problems that we are trying to fix and the progress that we have made. first, we don't want to have our country bound up in an ever-closer political union in europe. we are a proud and independent nation with proud, independent democratic institutions that have served us well over the centuries. for us, europe is about working together to advance our shared prosperity and our shared security. it's not about being sucked into some kind of european super state, not now, not ever. mr. speaker, the draft text set

out in full the special status according to the uk and clearly carves us out a further political integration. and it actually goes further to make clear that eu countries don't even have to aim for a common destination. this is a formal recognition of the flexible europe that britain has long been arguing for. in keeping britain out, i also wanted to strengthen the role of this house and all national parliaments. so we now have a proposal in the text that if brussels comes up with legislation we don't want, we can get together with other parliaments and block it with a red card. and we've also proposed a new mechanism to finally enforce the principle of sub sidiator which states that as far as possible, power should sit here in this parliament, not in brussels. so every year, the european union has got to go through the powers they exercise and work out which are no longer needed and should be returned to nation

states. now, second, i said we wanted to make europe more competitive. and deal with the rule-making and bureaucracy that can cost jobs in britain and across the european union. we ask for commitments on all the areas central to european competitiveness. we want international trade deals signed, the single market completed and regulations stripped back. all of these things are covered in the draft texts. there is a new proposal for specific targets to reduce the -- this will help small and medium-sized businesses and there's a new mechanism to drive these through and dut the red tape year to year. third, we're slulthss career that britain is going to keep the pound, in my view, forever. but we need to be just as clear we can get the pound in a european union that will be fair to our currency. put simply, it must not become a euro only club. if it does, it would not be a club for us.

we call for a series of principles to protect the single market for britain. we said there must be no discrimination against the pound, no disadvantage for businesses that use our currency, wherever they're located in the eu, and no option for britain ever again to be forced to bail out eurozone countries. all of these principles are reflected in the draft text which is legally binding. and again, there's a mechanism, britain has the ability to act to uphold these principles and protect our interests. mr. speaker, we should be clear, british jobs depend on being able to trade on a level playing field within the european single market, whether in financial services or cars or anything else. so this plan, if agreed, will provide the strongest possible protection for britain, from discrimination and unfair rules and practices. for instance, never again could the eu try its so-called location policy. that the settling of complex trades in euros must only take place in eurozone countries. these principles would outlaw that sort of proposal.

now, mr. speaker, these are protections we could not have if britain were outside the european union. now, fourth, we want to deal with the pressures of immigration, which have become too great. of course we need to do more to control migration from outside the european union. we are doing that, and we will be announcing more measures on that front. but we need to control migration from within the eu too. now the draft text represent the strongest package we've ever had on tackling the abusive free movement and closing down the back door routes to britain. great freedoms to act against fraud and prevent those who pose a serious threat from coming to this country, it includes a new law to everyturn a decision by the european court. and it has been a source of perpetual frustration that we can't impose our own immigration laws on third country nationals coming from the european union. but now, after the hard work of the home secretary, we have a proposal to put that right.

mr. speaker, there are also new proposals to reduce the pool factor that our benefit system exerts across europe, by allowing instant access to welfare from the day someone arrives. people said that europe wouldn't even recognize that we have this problem, but the text explicitly recognizes that welfare systems can act as an unnatural draw to come to this country. mr. speaker, our manifesto set out four objectives to solve this problem. i mentioned these at prime minister's questions. we'd already delivered on two of them within months of the general election. eu if those coming from the eu haven't found work in six months, they can be required to leave. in these texts, we've secured proposal says for the other two areas. if someone comes from another country in europe, leaving their family at home, they'll have their child benefit paid at the local rate, not at the generous british rate. and crucially, we've made progress on reducing the draw of

our generous in-work benefits. people said it would be impossible to end the idea of something for nothing. and that a four-year restriction on benefits was completely out of the question. but that is now what is in the text. an emergency break that will mean people coming to britain from within the eu will have to wait four years until they have full access to our benefits. and the european commissioner said very clearly that brilliant qualifies already to use this mechanism. so with the necessary legislation, we'd be able to implement it shortly after the referendum. let me be absolutely clear about the legal status of these changes that are now on offer. people said we would never get something that was legally binding. but this plan, if agreed, will be exactly that. these changes will be binding in international law and will be deposited at the u.n. they cannot be changed without the unanimous agreement of every eu country, and that includes britain. so when i said i wanted change that is legally binding and

irreversible, that is what i've got. and in key areas, treaty changes envisaged in these documents. so i believe we are making real progress in all four areas, but the process is far from over. there are details that still need to be pinned down, and intense negotiations to try and agree the deal with 27 other countries. it will require hard work, determination, and patience to see it through. but i do believe that with these draft texts, and with all the work we've done with our european partners, britain is getting closer to the decision point. it is of course right that this house should debate these issues in detail. so in addition to this statement, and of course a statement following a council later this month, the government would always make time for a full day's debate on the floor of this house. mr. speaker, as we approach this choice, let me be clear about two things. first, i'm not arguing and i will never argue that britain couldn't survive outside the european union. we are the fifth largest economy in the world, the biggest

defense player in europe, with one of the most extensive and influential diplomatic networks on the planet. the question is not, could britain succeed outside the european union, is it how will we be most successful? how will britain be most prosperous? how will we create the most jobs? how will we have the most influence on the rules that shape the global economy and affect us? how will we be most secure? and i've always said that the best answers to those questions can be found within a reformed european union. but let me say again, if we can't secure these changes, i rule nothing out. >> now, second, even if we secure these changes, this organization is not fixed. far from it. there are many things to be reformed. and britain will lead the way. we will work so that brilliant works for the countries of europe and the people of europe. and crucially for the british people, who want to work and have security and get on and

make the most of their lives. if we stay, britain will be in there, keeping a lid on the budget, stripping away unnecessary regulation and seeing through the commitments we've secured in this renegotiation. ensuring that britain truly can have the best of both worlds. in the parts of europe that work for us and out of those that don't. in the single market, free to travel around europe, part of an organization where cooperation on security and trade can make britain and its partners safer and more prosperous. but with guarantees that we'll never be part of the euro, never be part of shengen, never be part of a european army, never be forced to bail out the eurozone with our taxpayers money. that's the prize on offer. a clear path that can lead to a fresh settlement for britain in a reformed european union. a settlement that will offer the best future for jobs, security, and strength for our country. a settlement which, as our manifesto promised nearly a year

ago, will offer families in our country, security at every stage of their lives. that's what we're fighting for and i commend this statement to the house. >> jeremy corbyn. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i'm grateful for the prime minister for sending me a copy of the statement 45 minutes ago -- an hour ago, i'm sorry. and i'm pleased he's decided to update the house. however, it is a bit unfortunate that despite his trumpeting of sovereignty of parliaments, the prime minister didn't think to come and update our own parliament first. i hope he had a good day in chippenham, but i note he spent a lot of time answering questions from journalists, when it would be more respectful to come here first and answer questions from members. in truth, mr. speaker, this negotiation and reality is a tory party drama that's being played out in front of us as we

see at the moment. the labe our party is commitsed to keeping britain in the european union because we believe it's the best -- don't get too excited. let me tell you the rest of it. because we believe it is in the best framework for european trade and cooperation in the 21st century and in the best interest of people in this country. but we believe the prime minister has been negotiating the wrong goals in the wrong way for the wrong reasons. for all the sound and fury the prime minister's ended up exactly where he knew he would be, making the case to remain in europe, which is what he always intended, despite renegotiated spectacle choreographed for tv cameras over the only continent. mr. speaker, as his own back benches keep telling us, proposals for the european council are on the edges and have little impact for what the eu delivers for workers in britain. we welcome a veto over

commission legislation, even if it's heavily qualified, it seems the prime minister has finally moved towards the labour party's view on this issue, and we welcome him. protecting non-eurozone states ise is necessary, but we cannot lead these professionals to hamper efforts to regulate the financial sector, including bankers bonuses. the crucial detail on workers benefits for eu migrants is entirely absent. when is that information going to be made available? in any case, the prime minister calls the strongest package ever on the abuse of free movement doesn't tackle the real problems around the impact of migration on jobs, wages and community. those demand action to support public services in areas of high population growth and regulation to prevent the subsidizing of low pay and the grotesque

exploitation of migrant workers by some very unscrupulous employers. it's the same with competitiveness. is the prime minister really out to strengthen genuinely competitive markets, or is this proposal a fig leaf for increasing pressure to privatize our public services, reduction of consumer standards, environmental protection, or workers rights? this is why labor will continue to oppose the threats to services and rights from the tea-tip negotiations. we need to reform to ensure all european governments have the right to intervene, to protect publicly owned industries and services. this side of the house is delighted the prime minister has been forced to back down on his hopes to water down workers' rights. however, mr. speaker, we want to

see workers rights further protected and extended within the european union. we need a strengthening of workers rights in a really social europe. and we want to see a democratic reform to make the european union decision-making more accountable to its people. we must drive economic reform to put jobs and sustainable growth at the center of european policy. and work with partners in europe to bring tax-avoidance under control so that we can get a far better deal than the chancellor managed with google last week. but, mr. speaker, to extend -- to keep and extend these employment protections, we have to remain within the european union, or leave the field, the conservative party, to make a bonfire of workers rights. the prime minister says he's secured britain's exclusion from shengen, a european army and a european super state. the prime minister is living in

a never neverland. we've never argued for those things and don't intend to. we need to work with our allies in europe to achieve the more progressive reforms its people need, to build a more democratic europe, that delivers jobs, prosperity, and security for all of its people. we must do this together, that's why when the referendum is finally held, we'll be campaigning to remain a member. but i end by asking the question to the prime minister, does he now agree that once this smoke and mirrors side show deal is finally done, we'll get on with it, end the uncertainty and the referendum will be held on june 23rd, 2016? >> prime minister. >> can i thank the right old gentleman for his questions. first of all, on the issue of making a statement today rather than yesterday, i felt yesterday

i was in possession of all the documents, but i didn't think every member of this house would be, so i thought better to give honorable members a day to read the documents and have the debate today. it gave me the added advantage of being able to visit chippenham which of course is the town of the right old gentleman's birth, and i was able therefore to thank them for putting him on earth and for delivering him safely to this place. [ laughter ] now, in terms of the questions, first of all, he criticizes the issues we put on the table, getting out of ever closer union, waiting times for welfare, guarantees for fairness between ins and outs. i know he didn't read the labor manifesto, but i did, and all of those things were in the labor manifesto. they wanted a two-year welfare wait, rather than four years, but the other elements, many

were supported by labor. so honorable members can feel they have a mandate for backing these measures. he asked about the detail on the emergency migration break because there are gaps in the text. he's right about that, we need to secure the best possible outcome at the february council. he asked about the danger of exploitation of migrant workers, this is an area where he and i agree, that's why we've boosted the gangmaster's licensing authority, we with put in place better coordination between them and the national crime agency. we're making sure there are more investigations and more prosecutions. now on tea tip which is an area where we profoundly disagree. and other socialist governments in europe take my view which is tea tip will be good for jobs, good for growth, good for businesses. i'm not sure i ought to advise him to spend more time with trade unions, but actually he spends time with trade unions in sweden and other countries in northern europe, he may find

they too support tea tip because they want jobs for members. in the end, what i would say to all members across this house, this is an important moment for our country. so, yes, there will be areas of disagreements but we're involved in getting the best deal for britain. so i would urge all honorable members, if you want to have no more something for nothing, if you want to get britain out of ever closer union, if you want fairness between those in the euro, and those out of the euro, and you want a more competitive and successful europe, let's fight this together. >> mr. kenneth clarke. >> are you persuaded, kent? >> mr. speaker, the prime minister has achieved more on the big issues in this negotiation than i ever expected. and i suspect more than hardline

euro skeptics ever expected, which is why they're denouncing it so fiercely. but as he says, he still have to deliver it. does he accept that he's going to have great difficulty persuading governments in central and eastern europe in particular, to accept that their citizens, lawfully working here, alongside english people in key sectors like the health service, and the construction industry, should have lower take-home pay in the first few years than their english work mates? and so if he has to offer something in exchange for that, could he perhaps consider underlining our nato commitment to those countries, as their biggest concern is future military adventures by putin russia? and to underline our role if not the leading military contributor through nato to the european alliance, will be a very good offer to make by deploying more troops, perhaps, in order to get

what is a difficult, difficult concession for our partners to make in those countries? >> prime minister. >> to my right honorable friend, he has huge experience of european negotiations, both treaty negotiations and also ongoing negotiations in the council of ministers. so i'm grateful for what he says. he's absolutely right, these are difficult issues. my argument is that while we have the free movement of people, that many british people take advantage of, we don't have harmonized welfare and benefit system, nor should we. and the second point, when countries in europe have problems that they believe affect their key national interests, we've got to be flexible enough to deal with them. and i think that's what this agreement is showing. the advantage, of course, of the proposals put forward is that they will have the support of the european commission. and i think that will reassure some of the states in europe who have misgivings. he's absolutely right, we can also reassure them about our investment in their security, because i think that is a very

important issue with putin, as it were, to our east, with isil to our south, this is a moment where we need to make sure we're working together. >> angus robertson. >> thank you very much, mr. speaker. we in the scottish national party warmly welcome to make the positive case for the european union. it really matters that we're part of the world's largest single market. it really matters that we can help determine the rules and laws that apply to us and it really matters that we have a social europe with rights and protections for citizens and workers. will the prime minister first off commit to a positive campaign to remain in the european union and not resort to the negative tactics of prestigious fear. on the prime minister's negotiations, can i suggest that he stops pretending having won some major victory. he's not even secured treaty change he promised and much else asides. what is at stake is much bigger

than recent discussions. it's about whether we are in the eu or not. and that is what the debate across the uk will be in the run-up to the referendum. the timing of the referendum really matters to the electorates and the governments of scotland, wales, and northern ireland. as well as london, where there are elections in may. and this morning, mr. speaker, the first minister of scotland, nicholas sturgeon, the labor first minister of wales, the first minister of northern ireland, i think the first ministers of northern ireland, wales, and scotland, deserve a little bit more respect. the first minister of northern ireland, arlene foster, and the deputy first minister of northern ireland, martin mcguinness have written to the prime minister today. they say the following and i think that honorable and right honorable members should listen to what they say. we believe that holding a

referendum as early as june will mean that a significant part of the referendum campaign will necessarily run in parallel with those elections and risks confusing issues at a moment when clarity is required. we believe that the european referendum is of vital importance to the future of the whole united kingdom and the debate leading up to it should therefore be free of other campaigning distraction. we believe it would be better for you, for the prime minister to commit to deferring the eu referendum at least until later in the year. so will the prime minister take the opportunity and confirm that he will be respectful of the views of the governments of scotland, wales, and northern ireland, and defer the referendum beyond june? and finally, mr. speaker, may i take the opportunity yet again to ask the prime minister to answer this question, which he has singly failed to do so thus far. will he confirm that there are still no safe guards in place

which would stop scotland being taken out of the e uagainst the will of the scottish electorate? >> first of all, let me say, yes, of course, i think that when this campaign comes and we need first an agreement and recommended position by the british government and all the rest of it, but when this campaign comes, yes, of course, it should be a positive campaign. in terms of what he says about treaty change and whether this is legally binding, as i explained, it is legally binding and it does envisage treaty -- >> the house debated and ruled out coinciding with the scottish, welsh, and london elections, but the house did not rule out holding a referendum at another time, and specifically, the former first minister said that six weeks was the appropriate gap. look, obviously we have to wait to see whether an agreement is reached. but where i disagree with him, i don't believe that somehow this

is confusing issues. i think people are perfectly capable six or more weeks after one set of elections to consider another election and i note that the leadership of the opposition, whose party is in control of wales, was actually pressing me to hold the referendum on the 23rd of june. so there's obviously a range of opinions out there, i think the best thing to do is get the deal done and then hold a referendum. >> thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, this is all about trust. why has my right honorable friend in order to stay in, bibassed so many promises and principles. our national parliament he said at bloomberg is the root of our democracy, not a majority of red cards in other parliaments. that we would have full-on treaty change, not the

arrangements that we now have had announced to us today. we were promised a fundamental change in our relationship with the eu. we were promised that we would deal with the excessive immigrant numbers which has now been whittled down to an issue about in-work benefits controlled by the european court of justice. above all, this entire package, mr. speaker, we were told and promised would be both legally binding and also irreversible. but now, it will be stitched up by political decision, by the european council, and not by a guaranteed treaty change at the right time, and this, i have to say to the prime minister, is a wholly inappropriate way of dealing with this matter. >> great respect for my honorable friend, but i have to say, on this issue of whether it is legally binding, i really do believe he's wrong. if this document is agreed, it

would be an international law decision, and as an international law decision, the european court of justice have to take it into account. i would make the point to him because he follows these things very closely. denmark negotiated the same sort of legal opt-outs and 23 years on, they clearly stand and are legally binding. those are the facts. now he asks whether we are meeting what we set out in terms of the promises we made. we made very clear promises in our manifesto. get britain out of ever closer union. that's a promise we kept. make sure we restrict immigrants' welfare benefits. that's a promise we're keeping. real fairness between euro ins and euro outs. that's a promise we're keeping. in every area, more competitiveness. we've met the promises that we've set out. i understand there will be those who say we didn't ask for enough, or we need more reform. i believe these are the reforms that go to the heart of the concerns of the british people, people who feel this organization is too much of a political union, it's too

bureaucratic, not fair for non-euro countries, and we want more control of immigration. those four things are largely delivered through this negotiation. i would just ask also, colleagues on all sides of the house, i've sat on benches this side, that side. i've heard about the mast strict treaty, the lisbon treaty, the amber dam treaty, but i've never seen a prime minister standing at this dispatch box with a unilaterally achieved declaration of bringing powers back to our country. that's what we've got. that's what's within our grasp. >> mr. allen johnston. >> will the prime minister join me in welcoming the launch for environmentalists for europe today by the father for the right honorable member in uxbridge. an article last week, setting out the importance for science and technology of remaining in the european union, penned by the brother of the right

honorable member, will he have a word with his right honorable friend and tell him the importance of family solidarity and joining the swelling ranks of -- [ inaudible ] >> very good. we can't have too many johnsons agreeing with each other. he's absolutely right. there's also rachel johnson, the columnist, we'll have to go after her and make sure -- look, he makes a very important point about universities because we all complain rightly about the european budget and that's why it's so important we've got it under control and it has to fall every year. but we did safeguard in those budget negotiations the monies that british universities benefit for on a disproportionate basis. as for completing the happy family pack of the johnsons, we may have to wait a little bit longer. >> i would call the right honorable gentleman to ask a question if he were standing, but he isn't. you can't have it all. >> as we are driven in the new

vehicle towards ever closer union and to political union, how does it help to try and fit a couple of emergency breaks that lie within the control of the eu and not us? isn't the only way to get control of our borders, our tax revenues, and our welfare system, to leave and be a good european and let them get on with their political union? >> prime minister. >> i don't agree with that. i think actually what we're doing here is making sure that it's very clear, britain is carved out of ever closer union. i think that's a real advance. indeed it's something that he and other colleagues have been asking for, quite rightly and i've always believed is right. because our view, about europe, is that we're not there for political union. we're there for cooperation, we're there for trade, for working together on the things that matter. and look, of course, these documents can change. this is all in draft, but one of the issues on ever closer union is that actually the european union has gone further than i thought they would and have said

this, which i think colleagues will find interesting. the references to an ever closer union do not offer a basis for extending the scope of any provision of the treaties or of eu's secondary legislation. they should not be used either to support an extensive interpretation of the competence of the union or the power of its constitutions as set out in the treaty. now, that's never been said before in those ways. and those of us who care about ever closer union and getting out of ever closer union, this actually goes a long way to achieving in many ways, more than what we asked for. >> stewart. >> the european continent has seen flows of people and refugees larger since the end of world war ii. the balkans are becoming ever more volatile, and turkey is not behaving in a way which is as helpful as it could have been. have any of the negotiations the prime minister has been involved in actually increased the security of the european continent, or the security of

the united kingdom? >> i would argue both. when it comes to the security of the continent, we recognize that europe's external border, although it's not our external border, because we're not in shengen, it does matter. that's why we sent more representatives to go and help with the asylum and immigration support office than any other country. and why we're happy to do even more, working with the greeks, indeed, working with the turks. but there's an important change in all of this which does increase the security of britain going forward. first of all, because we're not in shengen, foreign nationals coming to other european countries, we don't have to let them into britain. long may that be the case. but the key changes that the home secretary and i have managed to secure about protecting our immigration system from fraudsters, from sham marriages, from criminals, from people who get married to try to get into our country, frankly, they've become even more important. and the fact is, we're going to

secure those, if this goes ahead, from within the eu. >> mr. boris johnson. >> since you've been so kind as to call me, perhaps i can ask the prime minister how these changes as a result of this negotiation will restrict the volume of negotiation, legislation coming from brussels will change the treaty so as to assert the sovereignty of this house of commons and of these houses of parliament. >> let me take those issues in turn, because i think he's right to raise them. first of all, in terms of asserting the sovereignty of this house, that is something we did in 2010 through our european referendum act, but something i'm keen to do even more on, to put beyond doubt that this house of commons is sovereign and that is something we'll look to do at the same time as concluding these negotiations. in terms of what are we doing to restrict the flow of legislation from brussels, for the first time ever in here, is a

commitment not only that europe has to examine all its competencies and worked out what should be returned to nation states, but there's also the proposal to cut brussels regulation with these bureaucracy capped targets. that's never been there before. i would argue, if you look across this, you can see you have welfare power coming back, immigration power coming back, bail-out powers coming back, and of course the massive return of power we achieved, the biggest return of power from brussels to britain since we joined the eu. we've absolutely nailed that down in these discussions to make sure they can't get around it. these were all key objectives. i'm not saying this is perfect. i'm not saying the european union will be perfect after this deal. it certainly won't. but will the british position be better and stronger? yes, it will. >> nigel dods.

>> mr. speaker, since assuming office in 2010, the prime minister has on occasion tried to his credit, to limit the increases in the contributions by the united kingdom to the european union budget. varying degrees of success on that front. can he now tell us as a result of this agreement, given that the uk pays 9 billion pounds and more net into the eu every single year, will he tell us how much our contribution is going to go down in net terms each year as a result of this agreement? >> well, we've already done the european budget agreement, which was for the first time, when you look at the seven-year financial perspective, that's the budget over the next seven years, that is going to be lower over this seven years than the last seven years. so that actually makes a -- there's a real terms cut, something no one thought would be possible to achieve. now the exact amount of money we give does depend sometimes on the growth and success of our economy. and one of the consequences of

our strong growth and the difficult times in the eurozone, that's meant a little bit more has been contributed. but the overall financial perspective is coming down and that's good news for britain. >> mr. dominic grieve. >> mr. speaker, my right honorable friend has achieved, i believe, quite remarkable results because of the legally binding nature of the document which he brings back, if it is accepted by the european council. in that context, he will know that one of the principled problems that has bedeviled the relationship with the european union has been the capricious interpretation of the treaties, sometimes to circumvent what the united kingdom has believed to be its true treaty obligations. in view of the remarkable specificity of this document, does he agree with me that this will be a very powerful tool in preventing that happening in future? >> i think my right old friend

makes a very important point. if we stand back for a moment and ask ourselves how is it that powers have been taken from this house to brussels, it's really happened in two ways. one, you've had a successive range of treaties, passing competencies from britain to brusselse brusse brussels. that can't happen anymore. me or any subsequent prime minister signed up to a treaty to pass powers, they couldn't. there would be a referendum. the second way that powers get passed is through the judgment of the european court of justice. that's why what's been secured on ever closer union is important because it's saying that in terms, if we can get this agreed, you can't use that clause to drive a ratchet of competencies going from britain to brussels. so the two routes for further integration where britain is concerned, i think, have been effectively blocked off. >> liz kendall. >> thank you, mr. speaker. can the prime minister confirm that nothing in this

renegotiation waters down important security cooperation at the eu level, like intelligence sharing, joint investigations and the eu arrest warrant and that when a deal is done finally, that he will join members on this side of the house, making a strong case that our membership of the eu helps bring criminals to justice and keep britain safe? >> i want this deal to be done. and i think the security argument is an important one. i think there was, when my honorable friend the europe minister was answering questions yesterday, the point was made, is it consistent to say, as we do secure in this document, that national security is a national competence? is it consistent to say that, but also to argue that europe is important for security? i believe it is. it's very important that we're clear that when it comes to our policing, when it comes to our intelligence services, the core

competences, they're for this house. they're for government decisions. but of course there are ways we can cooperate in europe to make yourself safer, making sure we know when criminals are crossing borders, making sure we exchange passenger name records and the rest, to keep us safe. which is why, when we opted out of the justice and home affairs area, we stayed in the ones that really matter for keeping us safe. and so i think that's very important in demonstrating we're both maintaining national security as a national competence, but working with our partners to keep our people safe. >> dr. liam fox. >> when i first said to the leader of the opposition that i prefer what he describes as the drama of the conservative party to the tragedy of his labour party. mr. speaker, whether or not an emergency brake kicks in is ultimately the decision of the european union, not the uk. the level of immigration at which it kicks in is a decision

by the european union, not the uk. even the benefit sunday abroad. we don't have independent control over these areas and isn't ultimately the decision in the referendum on areas of our own laws and borders, whether we want them to be determined here by ourselves or overseas by someone else? >> prime minister. >> great respect for my right old friend and i thought he explained very clearly on the radio this morning that he would be for leaving the eu, even without the renegotiation, he was very honest and frank about this. in terms of drama and tragedies, i'm sure we'll join me in saying we shouldn't turn a drama into a crisis. i think that would be the right approach. but what i say to him about the emergency breake, the commissio have been clear. they consider the kind of information provided by the uk

knumpt shows the precise situation that the mechanism is intended to cover, exists today. so i'm all for maximizing the sovereignty of this house, of this government, for our ability to do something. but we want no more something for nothing, we want a welfare. >> doctor alastair macdonald. >> could i reassure the prime minister that they the prime minister that in my commission notes that for most of those agree with him that we would be much more successful in the european union and out? and could we urge that the revenue be held later than june so that all aspects could be fully discussed? could i ask him if and when the negotiations, when the negotiators completed, the deposits result of the referendum next can be see the uk take and much more positive and engaged role within the structures of the european