always himself. that is something being in the business and i look back at all endorse,cks i would cupcakes and shoes i would never wear and all this stuff that wasn't me, and i would do it for the check. i am not like that anymore because of him. he has really shown me what to do and what i believe in. i respect that of him as a person, even if i am like, what is he saying? i might inside just want to be his translator all the time, but own respect that he has his opinions and he is his own person. >> just a moment left in the to weare will go live prime minister theresa may is talking about the brands it agreement approved by european sunday.in brussels on

live coverage on c-span is just getting underway. >> let's get respect for order for the prime minister. i would liker may: to make a statement on the conclusion of our negotiations to leave the european union. brussels, i read should deal with the leaders of the other 27 eu member states. it will ensure our departure on the 29th of march next year. there is a political declaration unambitious future partnership on national interest. it is the right deal for britain because it is for the british people. it takes back control of our borders. it ends the free movement of people allowing the government to introduce a new skills-based immigration system. it takes back control of our laws. it ends the jurisdiction justice in the u.k. madead, our laws will be

in our parliament and enforced by our court. it takes back control of our money. it ends the payments we sent to brussels. instead, we could spend taxpayer money on our own priorities, including the 394 million pounds intok of extra investment long-term plans for the national health service. like creating a new free trade , fees,th no tariffs charges, restrictions, or rules of origins, it will protect jobs, including those that will allow integrated supply chains. onll have close relationship defense and terrorism which will keep our people safe. it attacks the integrity of the united kingdom. it will deliver for the whole u.k. family, including our overseas territories. gibraltar, wen

worked constructively and i want to be tribute to the chief minister of gibraltar. for his statesmanship in these negotiations. we have ensured that gibraltar is covered by the whole withdrawal agreement and the implementation period. partnership, we want for the whole u.k. family, including gibraltar. weekend, everys aspect is the response of the united kingdom was agreed with the government of gibraltar. we are together in this as we have another aspects of this to your period of negotiation. legal textantly, the of the agreement has not been changed. that is what the spanish government repeatedly thought, but they had that achieve that. the united kingdom has not let us down.

mr. speaker, our message to the people of gibraltar is clear -- we will always stand by you. we are proud to bulger is british and our position on sovereignty has not and will not are proud gibraltar is british and our position on sovereignty has not and will not change. we will leave the european union in a smooth and orderly way. it protects the citizens living in the u.k. and those living in the eu so they can carry on living their lives as before. it delivers the time implemented the liberation period to give us time to prepare for the arrangements. trade will continue on current terms so businesses only have to face one set of changes. it ensures a fair settlement of financial obligations. less than half of some expectations. there will be no hard border between northern ireland and ireland and no customs border in the irish the. in the event the future

relationship is not ready by the end of the implementation period. mr. speaker some members remain concerned that we could find ourselves stuck in the backstop. let me address this directly. this is an insurance policy no one wants to use it both the u.k. and the eu are fully -- but the u.k. and eu are fully committed to having our future relationship in place right in january 2020 one. the withdrawal agreement has a legal duty on both sides to expect endeavors to avoid the backstop coming in. future relationship is not ready by the end of 2020, we would not be forced to use the backstop. we would have a clear chance between the back shop or short into the implementation period. if we use the backstop, it would be temporary and the article legal base cannot provide for permanent relationship. there is more flexibility that

it can be superseded i future relationships or by alternative relationships which include the andntial for arrangement technologies to avoid hard border on the island of ireland. the backstop can be turned off when we have filled our women on the northern island border. there is a right to trigger a review for the joint committee and the ability to end arbitration if the eu does not use good faith in this process. furthermore, as a result of the changes, the legal text is now clear that once the backstop has been superseded, it shall cease to apply. if a feature parliament decided to into a deep trade relationship, the backstop could not return. mr. speaker, i do not pretend that either we or the eu are entirely happy with these arrangements. that is how it must be. were either party entirely

happy, that party would have no incentive to move on to the future relationship. there is no alternative deal that honors our commitment to northern island which is not involve this insurance policy. the eu would not have agreed any future partnership without it. there is no deal that comes without a backstop and without a backstop, there is no deal. the withdrawal agreement is accompanied by a political declaration what sets up the scope in terms of a future relationship between the u.k. and the eu. it is a detailed set of instructions to negotiators that will be used to deliver a legal agreement on our future relationship after we have left. there is a withdrawal agreement and a declaration that requires both sides to use best endeavors to get the legal text great and implemented by the end of 2020. both sides are committed to make preparations for the negotiations after our withdrawal.

it contains specific details of future economic relationships. this includes a new free trade area with no tariffs, fears, quantity of restrictions, or rules of origin checks. an economic relationship and no other major economy has aired it includes -- has. etoncludes going beyond of -- wto. it includes new arrangements for the financial sector, ensure they cannot withdrawal on a whim and gives certainty to the leading industry. to be sure that we will leave eu programs that do not work in our interest. of a policy that fills our farmers and coastal communities -- that failed our farmers and coastal communities. we will be an independent and coastal state once again aired we will take back.

in control of our borders again. we will take back control of our sovereign borders. the eu has maintained throughout makeprocess they wanted to overall access to markets and access to fisheries. they failed in the withdrawal agreement and failed again in the political declaration. it is no prize some are trying to lay down workers again to the future relationship. they should be getting used to the answer by now, it is not going to happen. finally, the declaration is clear. whatever is agreed in the future partnership must recognize the development of an independent trade. in 40 years, time the u.k. will be able to find new trade dealers and open new markets for goods and services in the fastest-growing economies around the world. the future,

relationship also includes a comprehensive new security partnership with law enforcement and judicial corporations to keep all of our people safe. at the outset, we were told that being outside the area, we would be treated like any other non-eu state on security. this includes arrangements for data exchange on name records, fingerprints, and vehicle registration data as well as extradition arrangements. sharingto the way of information included in databases of wanted and missing persons and criminal records. and complexn a long negotiation. it has required give and take on both sides and that is the nature of a negotiation. this deal on is the result of the referendum while providing

close economic and security relationship with our nearest neighbors and in so doing offers a brighter future for the british people outside of the eu. i can say to the house with certainty there is not a better deal available and my fellow clear on thatery themselves yesterday. our duty as a parliament over the coming weeks is to examine the deal in detail, debate it ourectfully, listen to constituents and decide what is in our national interest. there is a choice will have to make the weekend back the deal and deliver on the voter referendum and build a brighter future of prosperity for all people or this house can choose to reject this deal and go back to square one because no one knows what would happen if this deal doesn't pass. it would open the door to more division and uncertainty with entail.risks that would

i believe our national interest is clear. the british people want us to get on with the deal but honor the referendum and allow this to as a countrygether whichever way we voted. this is that deal, a deal that delivers for the fish people and i commend it. thank you, mr. speaker. i think the prime minister for the advance copy of her statements. to sellnister may wants the summit as a great success, but to borrow a phrase, the reality is nothing has changed. the prime minister says if we reject this deal it will take us back to square one. the truth is, under this government, we never got beyond square one. the deal is a bad deal for this country.

yesterday did was marked the end of this governments failed and miserable negotiations. there can be no doubt this deal would leave us with the worst of all worlds, no say over future rules and no certainty for the future. even the prime minister's own cabinet cannot bring themselves to sell this deal. mitigates most of the negative impact of the endorsement. know these negotiations have failed and they know it will leave britain were soft. the national institute for research confirm this today, saying the prime ministers deal would mean our economy would be 3.9% smaller than it would otherwise be. this is more than our net

contributions to the european union which is currently 8.9 billion dollars a year, around 170 million per week. why is the prime minister claiming that extra minor -- money to the nhs will be due to brexit dividends? we look forward to the official treasury forecast and the legal advice this house voted nearly two weeks ago. the prime minister's claim this deal takes back control of our borders, money, and laws is a fallacy. the reality is the opposite. the prime minister says it should give us comfort that a backstop of be needed, but in june 2020, this country will be can agree a choice we to extend the transition period or accept the backstop. can the prime minister confirm that under her deal if we are to avoid the backstop we will have

to accept whatever the european union to man's to extend -- demands to extend? leave is a choice to pay more money without a say on the rules or a backstop leading to a regulatory board down i were see. -- sea. mr. speaker, it may not end there. the president of france has made clear what his priorities will forn negotiating britain future deal. he said, we will concentrate our efforts to obtain access to the waters before the end of the transition period. all of our fishermen will be protected. is it the case that under the prime minister's botched deal, we will have to agree to those demands on waters if we want to finalize a feature trade deal or

extend the transition? breaking every promise the prime minister, the environment secretary made to the fishing industry and our coastal communities. case thattar, is it a spain now has a role over gibraltar benefiting from any future relationships? that is still to be negotiated, not something the prime minister submitted last week. mr. speaker, this house will begin voting on a legally binding withdrawal agreement and a wish list contained in the declaration. the prime minister would be negotiating that future agreement from a position of profound weakness, paying more to extend the transition with no say over our money, laws, or borders and at risk for the unacceptable backstop which was

only made necessary by her own red lines, most of which have since been abandoned by her. in a national interest for the prime minister to plow on when it is clear this deal does not have the support of either side of this house or the country as a whole? mr. speaker, plowing on is not stoic, it is an act of national self harm. instead of threatening this house with a no deal scenario or a no breaks it scenario, the prime minister now needs to repair a plan b, something her predecessor failed to do. deal, a sensible deal that could win the support of this house based on a comprehensive customs union, a strong single market deal that --tects

>> i made it clear she should be heard and she was. this yelling from a sedentary position, stop it here and it is rude, foolish, and doomed to fail. >> thank you, mr. speaker. >> there is a sensible deal that would win this house based on a constant's -- customs union, a strong single market deal that text work and environmental and consumer safeguards. the prime minister may have achieved agreement across 27 heads of state, but she lost support of the country. many young people and others see opportunities being taken away from them. voted voted for an inclusive society and they feared this deal and they fear the rhetoric of the prime minister and promoting this deal. likewise, many people from areas

voted feel this deal has betrayed the brexit they voted for. it does not take that control and will not make them better off, and it will not solve the economic deprivation that affects far too many communities and towns and cities. this deal is not a plan for britain's future. for the good of the nation, the files -- house has very little choice but to reject this deal. prime minister may: thank you mr. speaker. just to pick up on what he made, he commented on the brexit dividends and where they go. we have been very clear that we will be able to use that money that we are not sending to the european union to spend on our priorities, including the national health service. there was a time when the honorable gentleman himself

talked about spending the brexit dividends for our public services. he talked about the backstop and the limitation period being the alternative. we have written in the , thebility of alternatives key is no hard border between northern ireland and ireland have a witchy dismissed in his response to our statement. -- which he dismissed in his response to our statement. he talked about control of noters and said our deal is going to control the borders, but it does because it brings an end to free movement once and for all. i know the labour party has never been able to actually stand up and say it wants to bring an end to free movement once and for all, and that is their not responding to the real needs and returns of the british people on these issues. the british people want control of borders and the end of free

movement and this deal delivered this. he talked about labor market policy and a single market. i hear yes from the bench. there was also a time when the right honorable gentleman talked about the importance of having an independent trade policy and negotiating our trade deals. he has gone back on his word in relation to these issues. he talked about the comments int president macron made access to borders. i recognize this has raised question from people about the issue in relation being in the backstop your for all of those concerned and for all of those who have commented on this, i think it is important to recall that if we were in the backstop, we would be outside the common fisheries policy and we would be deciding who has access to fish in our water.

mentioned gibraltar. i quoted the chief minister, who made very clear as i did that this government stood by gibraltar and we resisted changes to the withdrawal agreement which the spanish government wished to make. we are clear that gibraltar and its sovereignty will not change. and will notanged change but we are proud that gibraltar is british. about dealinglked with issues of our economy and those parts of the country where we do need to enhance and improve our economy. i have to say to him, the one thing that is clear and will never deliver for our economy is his policy on borrowing, taxing, and spending to balance the economy. smith --n duncan >> mr. speaker, can i recognize

my right honorable gentleman and return her to the point about the backstop. does she recognize the genuine and real concern held on all sides of the house about what would happen if the u.k. was to be forced into the backstop? listen careful to what my right honorable friend said, she said the u.k. doesn't want it, the eu doesn't want it, and we heard that ireland said that no matter what agreement, they would never have any hard border. it makes you wonder, why is it in the withdrawal agreement at all? the question is this -- if the roadnment going down the toward negotiation is heading towards that point when the backstop will become invoked, does that not generally mean that mr. macron is right that we will come under total pressure to agree almost to anything to yvoid our entry into what m

honorable friend says we never want to be in? myme minister may: to honorable friend, i do recognize the concern that has been and remains on the issue of the backstop your i disagree about the position that we entail. as i indicated in my statement, -- that we are in this position and we have recognition there could be alternative arrangements to the backstop or the extension of the implementation period with the border of northern island. it is right that while i recognize the concern that this is not a situation the u.k. wants us to be in, neither is it a situation the european union wants us to be in. the reason is, although as strange as it may seem, there

are members of the european union who think the backstop would be a good place for the u.k. because of its access to the european markets without having financial obligation and without free movement. that is why they don't want us to be in a backstop either. neither wants to invoke it. we want to ensure the future relationship replaces it and delivers commitment to the people. >> thank you, mr. speaker. >> the prime minister's deal means scotland is to be taken out of the union against our will and out of the single market, a market that has a for the u.k. and scotland voted for it. standards and ending freedom of movement, something to obtainmake it hard

the staff we need. it has been good for scotland. aboutime minister talks eu citizens coming here we are she plainly disregards the rights that we will all lose to live and work. we are not prepared to give up these rights. the prime minister's view with the majority -- carries no majority in this house and must split. no long-term agreement on the trading relationship and it is a deal full of s and -- ifs and buts. here we are with another sellout to the scottish fishing industry. .e have been here before

we have been sold out by governments. agreement, fishing registered in northern ireland told continue to gain access eu markets. the fishing boat registered in scotland and other parts of the u.k. would not. we know the eu will start negotiations. mr. speaker, that is not taking back control of our waters. it is exercising an effective veto. again byeen duped once the conservatives. this selloutept from the conservatives. i call upon the secretary of state. search our conscious because your fingerprints are all over this. after leaving the eu, it could

be extended by one or two years. does the prime minister except that means the u.k. would almost no rights for another one or two years? dealrime minister says the ends uncertainty. it does not and uncertainty for the fishing sector or the state of the economy which faces years of turbulence. talkmr. speaker, the way scot's interest have been dismissed by the u.k. government demonstrates the real cost of not being an independent country able to make our own decisions.

speaker, we will continue to work across parties to put in place a deal that works for scotland, and we will support another referendum on eu membership. >> thank you. i will address the two main points. he mentioned the question of migration. i think it is important that we deliver on what people voted for. they felt it was not right that people had a right to come here, were freely able to move your based on the country they came from, rather than their contribution to the united kingdom. we will be able to put in place a still face immigration system based on people's skills and contribution to our economy. e majority ofe his comments to the fishing economy.

the real sellout of scottish fishermen is a policy to stay in. who is it who has been standing up for scottish fishermen in this house? conservatives. all the scottish nationalist is stay in thedo common fisheries policy. that would be a sellout of scottish fishermen. if the european union really intends, in good faith to rapidly negotiate the future trade agreement, why can we not make the second half of the 39.5 billion payment on condition of delivery? aware, fromend is they negotiations we held,

39 billion has been determined in relation to our legal obligation.i think it is important that as a country , we are a country that stands up to our legal obligations. there is a timetable for these payments spread over a period of time. of this isnt ensuring we are able to have that implementation. to ensure businesses only have to make one set of changes. by refusing to make choices now about our future economic relationship with the european union, and what the prime minister has done is to put off the moment when we will have to make those choices to a time when the eu will have much greater leverage over this country because any future trade agreement will require the unanimous approval of every

european member states. how can the prime minister expects the house to vote to put the country in such a weak position? is this not the biggest failure of this negotiation? >> i am sure you are very well aware of the possession that the european union cannot find a trade agreement -- we are looking for that free trade area being at the heart of our economic future. the european union is not able to find that and develop the legal text for that until we have withdrawn from the european union. setting out details of our future relationship, the political declaration does just that and makes it very clear is the set ofthis instructions that the future relationship will put into place

what is in the political declaration. stands, therently majority of honorable and right honorable members in this place will not vote in favor of the prime minister's deal, despite her very best efforts. she needs plan b. what is the prime minister's plan b? is that norway plus of the single market, the customs union, which some of us have been arguing for for over two years? throughout the last 18 months of negotiations, people have said to me it was not going to be possible for me to be able to negotiate a deal with the european union. no sooner do i negotiate a deal then people are saying, what is the next thing you are going to do? we will havesness, a number of days of debate in this chamber prior to the

meaningful vote on this deal. i believe it is important that when people look at this deal and come to that vote, they consider the interests of this country, their constituents, the importance of delivering on brexit. now that the prime minister has decided to launch a public debate on her plans, should she not move beyond her comfort zone of debating with brexit fellow travelers like the labour party, and engage with a much larger trust a party coalition in favor of the people's vote with of the new european union? will she not debate with of the real opposition? he and his honorable friends have asked me the question about the people's vote on a number of occasions. my answer has not changed.

i believe it is important, having given the choice of the british people, that we now deliver on the choice of the british people. there is a difference of opinion between myself and him. i think ther majority of the british people want us to get on. does the prime minister appreciate that the withdrawal withment is incompatible 2018 which expressly repeals the whole of the european 972? in this event, we will truly regain our laws. does the prime minister accept that this agreement, being only a treaty, overrides the statutory provisions of the 2018 act, and is therefore a

immortal? the advice of the attorney general? i make two points. the first is the withdrawal act. one thing it does is bring european union law into u.k. law such as there is a smooth and orderly transition when we leave the european union. the withdrawal agreement will be implanted in our legislation through the withdrawal agreement act. >> the prime minister says in her statement, the legal text is not also clear that once the backstop has been superseded, it shall cease to apply. we need accuracy. the article says the backstop can be superseded in whole or part, that chelsea's to apply in whole or part.

we need accuracy because it is the legal text that matters. this is what will bind the country. will the prime minister tell us as the chancellor has rightly said that the backstop is bad for the union, that for the economy? can you tell us what is so bad for the union? the part of the backstop that is bad for the european union -- sorry, for the united kingdom, this is what we want to be able to do, is in the future to be able to have our independent trade policy. one of the issues is whether or not we will be able to do that. that is one of the issues we were not want to see in us continuing to be and the backstop for. congratulate my right honorable friend on beginning her campaign to sell this deal to the country with the frank

admission just now that it is unsatisfactory. that may be a bit of an understatement, but it is very hard to see how this deal can provide certainty to business or to anyone else when you have half the cabinet going around reassuring business that the a deal tout together remain in the custom steel and single market. the prime minister herself continuing to say that we are going to take back control of our deals and do real free-trade deals. they can't both be right. which is it? what i said in my statement was that neither we nor the eu were entirely happy with the backstop arrangements put in place. that is accurate. i've referenced one reason why we are not happy with it, and earlier and answers why the european union are not happy

with it. recognize that concerned that has been expressed about our ability to negotiate free trade deals on the basis of the arrangement we are putting in place with of the european union. we will be able to negotiate those free-trade deals. i think every member of this house should be aware that windows trade deals are being considered, there will be issues that this house will want to consider, which will be nothing to do with whether or not we have a particular relationship with the european union. this house will to consider animal welfare standards, environmental standards. these are the issues which members of this house will want to consider when they look at those free-trade deals. it is absolutely clear we will be able to negotiate those free-trade deals with the relationship being proposed. >> this isn't a deal for the future. we don't know whether this means

checkers or canada or norway or an endless backstop or massive downgrade. we have no idea where this is heading and other countries are already saying that this gives them more leverage because it reduces our negotiating power. happened to say that this is in the future interest of the country? used to say that nothing is a great until everything was agreed. when did she change her mind? i want to point out that what this political declaration does is set out very clearly the basis for the future relationship we will be having on security and economic arrangements with the european union. it also sets up clearly that the clear intent of both parties to develop good faith agreements giving effect to this relationship. does is not about some other sort of relationship. it is about what is in this document.

she asked whether it was canada or norway, i said at the beginning we should get away from thinking on the shelf models that exist already. what is being proposed here and acknowledged from the european union is the relationship of unprecedented debt not being offered to any other major advanced economy. it is a relationship that shows we are not just another country. will she agreed that this agreement could cost a lot more than 39 billion as there are limits or figures in it and lots especially if, the eu goes as slow on the next phase of negotiations as the last lot and drag us into permanent transition at the norm is cost. arean i say that there clauses within this withdrawal agreement in relation to the endeavors both sides will make to reach an agreement by the end of the implementation period in december 2020, that make it

clear that action can be taken if either side drags its feet and the way they are talking about. minister is not suggesting that compared with staying in the european union, her brexit proposal would mean that our country would be economically better off, if she? -- is she? >> the question as to our future at home, no. i do believe we can be economically better off outside the european union. the problem is, there are those who think the only factor that determines how well off we are in the future is whether or not we are a member of the european union. i differ. our future is in our hands. and will be our decision in many areas that will determine our prosperity for the future. >> nobody can doubt the prime minister has tried her very best. are we not nonetheless being asked to take a huge gamble

here, paying, leaving, surrendering our vote and veto without any firm commitments to frictionless trade or the absolute rights to dismantle external tariffs? is it really wise to trust the future of our economy to a pledge simply to use best endeavors? the position in relation to the nature of the principal declaration is exactly what i set out in response to the question of the chairman of the eu selects committee which is that it is not possible for us to sign the legal treaty with the european union until we are outside the european union. the prime minister was told very clearly last november that any backstop would not be acceptable.

she has carried on with allowing it to be put in. not only is it in, it is in and away that we cannot actually get out of it unless the eu allows us. as that really not giving back sovereignty to our country, to the people who voted to leave? >> as i said in my statement, the position is very simple. there is no withdrawal agreement without a backstop. without a backstop, there is no deal. that is because of the commitment of both sides wanted to the people of northern ireland to ensure there was no hard border between northern ireland and ireland. any other agreement on trade with the european union would have a backstop. debate has seen false promises made to the public from all sides, and from all parties. democracy only works when it can be based on a debate of truth and honesty in fact.

how does the prime minister assure the house that this debate we are about to have now on her deal is based on facts and evidence and not more false promises to the british people, subsequently,ken will damage trust in our democracy even more? we are committed as a government to publishing .nalysis of this deal as if she is aware, there are others looking at the economic aspects as well. i'm tempted to say this, she asks whether this can be based on fact. adjusting would be an debate for the south to the extent at which economic forecasts can be described as fact. can i thank the prime minister for the efforts she made personally on behalf of my

constituent, matthew hedges, who has been released this morning. news in the midst of this brexit mess. if she is so confident that the public supports this deal, why doesn't she asked them? -- ask them? >> i have responded to the question about this second referendum issue before. it is very simple. i think it is absolutely right that this house and politicians should see it as a duty to implement the vote that the british people gave to leave the european union. >> when she describes the functioning of heard free-trade area, it sounds awfully like the comprehensive customs union. can she be absolutely clear where we are headed? will we never reached the point where there are customs declarations? >> my friend is well aware of

the position the government takes, which is that we will be working for frictionless trade. , as he will see the references are for an ambitious agreement in relation to the restriction of checks. obviously, there is a balance between the rights of frictionless access against the obligation. that is set out quite clearly in the document as mountable friend knows. the government set out its position in the summer. >> the prime minister says a majority of people want her to get on with brexit. that isn't true. it might be an inconvenient fact, but the truth is a majority do want a people vote. when she is giving her tour around the country -- >> order. the honorable lady is entitled

to ask her question without being consistently shouted at. i thought we were talking about respect in the chamber. try remembering it. care, and i want to hear the honorable lady and the response. >> thank you. we have heard the prime minister is planning to tour the country. why doesn't she try listening to the public rather than having a stage-managed opportunity. why can't people actually have a chance to have their say in a people's vote? if she really trust them, she would do it. >> i have answered the question of the people's vote earlier. i do listen to the public. is, get onlming view with it and do what the vote says. the conservative manifesto at the last election promised to

deliver the lead vote by leaving the single market, leaving the customs union. believe that this document does not deliver that. it also is a clear breach of the principal consent of the belfast agreement and will cost us 39 billion. across the house including myself intend to vote against the steel, at this late stage, will the prime minister acknowledge, that the obstacle of an old marriage border, is a technology the current techniques. will she therefore please look to a comprehensive free-trade deal with our solutions to the northern ireland border? >> at the heart of this

political declaration and partnership is a comprehensive free-trade deal. it is a better deal than canada. in the prime minister's is smooth and orderly the new strong and stable? is smooth and orderly exit is what business wants. there is one thing on which we can all agree. when we come to vote on this in two weeks time, this will be about the most important thing that those of us in this house will ever vote upon in our entire lives. telegraph a description of this deal as a surrender. i'm afraid it is.

knows in her is that you dry than the spanish are off the gibraltar. >> order. sit-down. let me say to members around the right honorable gentleman, including some that think they will be called to ask a question. don't sit or heckling your colleague. he has a right to be heard. if you don't like it, listen with courtesy and silence. if that is that bad for you, you are welcome to leave the chamber. the right honorable chamber will be heard. amen. and a subject. the prime minister and the whole house knows the mathematics. this will never get through. even if it did, they do you k willp have said they review the confidence and supply agreement. i plead with you, the house of

commons has never surrendered to anybody, and it won't start now. as ican reassure you referenced in my statement in relation to gibraltar, the united kingdom has not surrendered in those matters that he has referred to. he talked about the spanish position on gibraltar, the spanish have always had that position. he talked about the french wanting our fish. as people know, french fishermen have long been wanting fish in our borders. in theey did want to do political declaration was to link that access to our borders, to access markets in relation to trade. we resisted that and continue resisting that, and resisted that in the documents themselves. we will continue to resist that and continue on gibraltar. the prime minister deserves

some sympathy trying to drum up that divided model behind her. tter is, it a ma is not going to happen. she is not going to get the majority in this house for this deal because it would leave the british people worse off. a growing concern now is that many of my constituents were asked to assert parliamentary supremacy on this, which you mentioned. >> you talk about elementary supremacy. it was as parliament that decided overwhelmingly to ask the british people on their review of our membership of the european union. they voted and gave that view, and i believe it is our duty to

deliver on that. may i think my right honorable friend for making three statements to the house of commons in 10 days. question, the prime minister has said we have a legal obligation to pay 39 billion pounds. awonder if she is forgetting law that set in the event of leaving without a deal, we have no money at all. therefore, what are we buying with 39 billion pounds of taxpayer money? >> can i assure my friend that i have not forgotten the house of lords report, but there is a different opinion. that opinion is that there are legal obligations that this country would hold to the european union in relation to financial payments in any circumstances. i think itd before, is important that we are a country that upholds our legal obligations. >> tomorrow, i will be part of a

group of scottish parliamentarians from the s&p, labour party and scottish green party who are going to the courts of justice in luxembourg to establish if it would be possible for this parliament to tell the prime minister to revoke her article 50 notice. does she said my sense of pride that it will be scottish parliamentarian and scottish court that will give this parliament a two alternative to her deeply flawed deal? i know she has consistently raised this issue of the revocation of article 50. as a she knows, it is not going to happen because it is not government policy. the prime minister said in her statements that her deal will protect jobs. can i ask her which region or regions of the united kingdom will be more prosperous with higher productivity and higher

gdp per capita than they will under present arrangement within the eu? >> the answer to that question is the extent to which we are able to enhance the prosperity and number of jobs in regions of the united kingdom depends on a whole variety of decisions taken by this government. 3.3 million jobs have already been created. if my friend remembers, the budget that was given in november, he will also have heard the predictions that 800,000 jobs will be created over the next period of years in this country. the prime minister has been very clear this afternoon that she doesn't think it is right that the public having had a vote to leave the public union, should have a say on what happens next on the deal she has done. can she confirm that if this

shee votes down her deal, will not seek to force a second vote on this deal, or will he itd out as the dup have that is also for her and no safe or anyone else? >> i will be working to ensure and persuade members of this house that this is the deal that is on the table. this is a deal that delivers on the vote of the british people and it does so while protecting jobs, our security and our united kingdom. will she recalled how much we both hope so much that i would be able to support whatever the prime minister brought back from her negotiations? can i say how said i am? i cannot possibly support this deal that pays a 39 billion pounds sibley to kick the can

down the road. possibly agree to an arrangement economic where we have the unilateral right to leave the european union, but no such unilateral right to leave these new arrangements will to will be subject to an eu the go --veto. looking at the future treaty arrangements, which will cover security partnership and economic partnership, i would expect that as in any trade agreements, they would be appropriate arrangements for review and for the question of the potential termination of those relationships. iris p the point that i've made previously. i think it would be wrong for this house to believe that there were no legal obligations to pay money to the european union that

the united kingdom has on leaving. there are legal obligations to pay money to the european union. i think it is important that we abide by those obligations. the national institute of economic and social research published a report today that would makethis deal the u.k. 100 billion pounds worse off by 20 19. reallyprime minister believes the majority of the u.k. wants that outcome, can i suggest that she is not knocking on enough doors? will she commit to giving the nation a final say on the exact terms of her deal? i have responded on a number of occasions this afternoon on the question of a second referendum. morning, the

chancellor told the today program that as the u.k. is split down the middle over the anything that, looks like one half of the country winning and the other half losing would be disastrous. in that case, may i ask, does the prime minister agree with him, and if so, what was the point of holding the referendum in the first place? i think the point is a very simple one. now is the time for this country to come back together again. it is a time for us to recognize that in delivering on the brexit deal that the people voted for the016, we are meeting instruction we were given by people in a referendum. we are doing it in this deal and a way that protects jobs and livelihoods and our united

kingdom. now is the time for the country to come back together and get back behind the steel and ensure we can build a better future for all. last week, the prime minister managed to insult and upset over 3 million european citizens who live and work in this country. over 150,000 of them, like my german husband, a gp here for over 30 years felt absolutely thrown away when they have spent decades here looking after us when we are ill. will the prime minister take this opportunity perhaps, to apologize for her thoughtless and insulting comments? i should not have used that language in that speech. the point i was making was a simple one. i may say to her, right from the very beginning i said that

citizens rights was a key issue i wanted to see addressed in the withdrawal agreement. that was one of the things we put at the top is one of our priorities and have delivered that in the withdrawal agreement. can i also say, that i think the broader point that for most people here in the u k, they want to see people coming to this country with the skills of wanted to make a contribution. her husband has made a contribution as a gp in this country. they want people to be judged as we will on their skills and contribution to our economy, rather than simply on where they come from. it is the easiest thing in the world for people to criticize a deal they haven't written and for people to remain in their entrenched positions they have been in for the last few years. the braver thing and right thing for this country now it is to challenge ourselves on our views

of brexit, to step up to the plate as elected representatives and to give this deal the scrutiny that it needs. to realize that what will cost us far more than 39 billion pounds is a no deal brexit. i think this was the point thatwas made very well, this is a very important note for this country. that is why when people come to debate this topic and vote on this topic, i hope they will atk, as she has said, look the details of the deal, recall the need to deliver for the deal foreople on the brexit and also our constituents jobs and livelihood for the future. debates in this house are all

about serious matters, but this is a historic matter for this country and it is important that we approach this in the right way. >> does the prime minister accept that if we have to use the backstop, that the rest of the eu gives us permission to do so and that they are in a position to ransom any position to gain our experts? it can beossible if shown that it can be superseded by alternative arrangements that can be put in place. thatey is being able to so we are delivering on the commitments of the people of northern ireland in relation to the border. the prime minister in her statement speaks of justice and how this deal ends the court of justice. can my friend give a precise state or year when the u.k. will no longer be bound or subject or

have imposed on it any justice of the european court of justice? >> as it she will recall from within thesections withdrawal agreement does have a period of time where it will be insible for the issues relation to citizens rights to be considered by the european court of justice. beer that point, they will no jurisdiction of the european court of justice in the united kingdom. in all other matters, there will be no jurisdiction prior to that point. -- a limitedmited range of issues that can be considered in relation to citizens rights during that drawdown period. it will be the case that people will not be able to take cases to the european court of justice in this country. it will be the case that it will be our courts who are

determining and interpreting our laws. i'm sorry to say this to the prime minister, but there is a stark difference between stoic determination and sheer stubbornness and a failure to listen. she has come here today with the same off script telling us we have to vote for this piece of paper that will make us poor, weaker, less influential, less well off, less secure. to says as wants to peel over our heads and go to the people. if she wants to go to the people, why is she afraid to put this question to a people's vote? i have answered the question of a people's vote on a number of occasions. i believe in delivering the vote of the british people that took place in 2016 for the reasons i set out. for those who consider a second

vote of some shape or form what do anything other than divide this country further or create more uncertainty, i think they only have to look at what happened during the initial referendum campaign. we asked people to choose, they chose, it is our duty to deliver. so many young people in my constituency have got work in the car industry. us thatfacturers warn no deal could result in tariffs of 4.5 billion. can my friend confirmed that her deal would provide much-needed certainty continuity and above all safeguard jobs? recognizeay that i the importance of the automotive industry and her constituency and many others around the indeed thed political declaration on the tariff issue expressly provides for no terrace.

-- tariffs. >> will this agreement stop the federal europe and stop the stupid laws coming from europe? the way i see it, we have two feet in and one arm open. i think i could give him comfort on all of the points that he makes. the point is, we are coming out of the european union. if they choose to go down to a more federal europe, we won't be part of that. we are not a member of the euro. we are not proposing we are coming out of the european union. we will certainly not be in the euro and we will be making our laws. can she come from the under her leadership this united kingdom will never become a vessel state, but can she also confirm that is native self

interest on either side of this house propels -- prevails over national interest, we could end up as an impoverished state? the proposals we have put forward in relation to our future economic relationships and sore that it will be parliament determining our laws. i think everybody in this house when it comes to this vote should be considering and putting first the national interest and not their own or their party political interest. official note of yesterday's council m that this should resist order shields. when you compare that to the prime minister's statements whyy, you can understand our fishermen are anxious.

this situation only rises because the prime minister agreed to include fisheries in the official arrangements. does she now agree that that was a mistake? >> that is not the case. i think what he is quoting from is the minutes from the council meeting 27 which has a number of issues in it, which actually who havehere are those concerns on a number of issues because they were not able to arrive at the position they would have preferred to have in a political declaration that we have agreed with the european union. we have resolutely stood up for our fishermen. i know my friend has been working hard in what she sees as the best interest of the country. it has been a pretty thankless task. i have to say to her, i do worry when i read her letters to the

british people, which sets out a picture of the future which seems to me to be a clear variance with any rational analysis of the text in relation to the political declaration. how can we seriously say to people that the northern ireland backstop will not act as a fedor on our future freedom of action? happily say we are going to lose the jurisdiction of the ecj one it is going to continue to play a major part in our lives for the foreseeable future? wouldn't it be better if we are going to have an informed debate that we are completely transparent with the problems we are going to have to face will make up through the stage if she succeeds in her notion in two weeks time of leaving the eu on the 29th march? our problems have hardly begun. >> of course it is the case.

i have explained the reason why earlier that we have to negotiate the full legal text of the future economic partnership and future security partnership. my friend, i know will understand the reason for that. what is important that what we have here is a set of instructions for the negotiations on the basis on which that future relationship will be set. that is one which is ambitious and unlike any other, given to any other country and is unlike any other country. more ambitious, closer and a better partnership than any other country has. come the prime minister confirm that if we go back to square one, we will retain a seat, of voice and a vote? we will stay in the single market and the customs union and be a better place than we would be in the backstop?

>> no. we are leaving the european union and we are leaving on the 29th of march, 2019. my friend said we can make the backstop if it can be shown with met the criteria. who we are accountable to make sure they will allow us to leave? the initial discussion takes place between the two parties of the united kingdom and the european union. there is a process that that goes through the joint committee of the two bodies. there is also an arbitration process which can be brought into operation in relation to that. throughout the withdrawal agreement in various elements, it refers to the good faith on both sides. if it is the case that the commitment to northern ireland has been met, then i think it

will be clear that we would be able to come out of the backstop. one of the problems of prime minister has had to grapple with over the last two years is that those who campaign to leave the european union have no blueprint for what they would do if they won the referendum. the governments are now repeating that mistake. cannot prime minister tell the house what plans are being put in place if the government loses the vote on the 12th of december? what preparations are being put in place for either extending article 50 or four preparations for a people's vote to put this question to the country? i've answered that question in response to other questions. my focus is on this deal and

that this is the deal that is good for the united kingdom because it delivers in a way that protects jobs. true that both the government and the european union believe that this backstop will be temporary, what the prime minister take an opportunity before the vote, or indeed accept an amendment to the meaningful vote to make absolutely clear that if by the end of a due date of this parliament we are still held in this backstop, still held in customs arrangements against our aggregate those parts of the treaty and restore our national sovereignty? i know who has raised the question with me to the extent to which we are able to pull out hethe treaty arrangements, and i are corresponding on that particular matter. can i say that it is not only

the clear intent of both parties, using their best endeavors in good faith, in these documents to ensure that we are able to have a future relationship in place by the end of december 2020, and thereafter, should it be the case that an alternative arrangement has to be in place for northern ireland, it should be only for a temporary period of time, backstop or other arrangement because it is not a given that that would be the backstop. itis my friend intention -- is not a given that that would be the backstop. it is my firm intention to ensure that at the end of this parliament, we are all able to look the british people clearly in the eye and say, we have delivered on brexit, we have delivered on what you wanted to ensure, which was an end to free and sending vast amounts of money to europe every year. >> the prime minister has made it very clear that at all costs,

she wants to avoid a no deal brexit. my friend has also reassured labour entities that that is his priority to avoid a no deal brexit. conservativese 18 that will vote against the deal in may, with a prime minister set down with my friend and have a meaningful discussion about how we make sure that when it comes to workers rights, health and safety, we do not fall behind and we secure a sustainable customs arrangement going forward? done -- theave proposals we oppose forward and what we have done and a political declaration is to ensure that we do look for that free-trade area, the customs arrangement that is going to deliver on jobs for people.

i'm interested that she has indicated that her friend, the leader of the opposition is leave that we should the european union with a deal, because previously he has indicated that he would vote against any deal brought back. >> nobody can fail to a knowledge the personal commitment and determination and best intentions of the prime minister. if this house does not pass the agreement, of the prime minister confirm that she has ruled out extending the negotiating period or even purchasing an extension to that period? >> the extension will be an extension of article 50. i am clear that we will not extend it and that we will leave the eu on the 29th of march next year. >> on friday, my constituents got the desperate news of 241 job losses.

to 900 jobe total losses since the referendum. when this government won't even do the basic to help automotive industries like ending the discrimination of business rates, how on earth are my constituents is supposed to trust this government's political wish list about their economic future? >> i am sorry to hear of the job losses in her constituency. can i also say that there are many examples that we have seen in the automotive industry of investment going into this country and the automotive industry. there are many examples we have seen.she references what the government has seen . the government has been working very closely with the automotive industry. we are working hard to ensure that this country is a leading edge and the automotive industry which is what we are doing with electric vehicles.

>> this morning, the government published what it described as the explainer for the political declaration. page one of that includes the following sentence, the political declaration and withdrawal agreements have been settled together on the basis that nothing is agreed until everything is a great. ,n the light of her responses correct,sentence is does it not mean that the 39 billion is contingent on as getting an agreement on the future arrangements? together,re agreed but i repeat to the point i have made to others that it is the case that they are in whatever circumstances we find ourselves in relation to leaving the european union, there will be

legal obligations of a financial nature that this country has to abide by. the england already dry on this statement before the french president said he would be using the provisions of this agreement to leave her further concessions on fishing and other issues of from the u.k. government. other states are no doubt doesking the same. the prime minister not recognize that by signing this legally binding agreement, she is handing the eu a cudgel which will be used for a second time when it comes to negotiations on future arrangements? >> no, i don't agree that. i referenced earlier remarks made by the french president and relation to the backstop. i will repeat the point which is, if the backstop is exercised, we will be outside the common fisheries policy, and

it will be the united kingdom that will determine which boats have access to u.k. waters. we have a responsibility not just to embody the positions that exist, but to try to bridge them and fix them.isn't it the case that table has thee advantage of being the only one grounded in reality that has a chance of going forward? >> first of all, i think he is right. there are many circumstances or people can wish that something was different from what it is. , there will be no agreement without a backstop, without a backstop there will be no deal.

if this is the deal, this, i believe is a good deal for the u.k. and i believe it is the right deal. welle prime minister knows that there is no dividend to be had from this withdrawal agreement under all economic analysis. we will be worse off for decades to come. is a not time for the prime minister to level with of the british public and except that that because the decision has to be taken, that it is one that should be put back to the people who started this process back in 2016? we will continue to ask her that until it does so. heard, i am very clear that we should leave the european union because the vote of the british people was to leave the eu. it may be the policy of others to stay in the european union.i

don't think that would be right .i think that would be betraying the trust that the people put in us. can i ask the prime minister it when she hears cries of no some members of this house want to drag us to a no deal brexit, that that would be catastrophic for my constituents? can see remind those members of the house that the conservative manifesto made commitments to a deepened special partnership and a comprehensive customs arrangement with europe? does this deal deliver on that? >> i am happy to tell her that this deal does, indeed deliver on that manifesto commitment. under the agreement from january 2021 for a national to fly from a third country into dublin, then travel to belfast and the rest of the u.k., where

will the immigration border be? >> the common travel area will continue to exist. that is one of the things being agreed on. transition ofhe the backstop indefinitely has got to be a trap. say no? precisely for the reasons i set out. not only is it clear that it can be temporary, but also that many in the european union believe the backstop is a place that gives the united kingdom an advantage. i think i have heard -- she also confirmed that if she

does lose this, will she confirmed that she will resign? >> i am focusing on actually and soaring that we ensure that members of this house see the benefits. that are in this deal it is a good deal for the u.k. and everybody will have a decision to take about the responsibility to deliver on brexit to the british people when that vote comes. >> i do have respect for the prime minister. i understand her position. over the past two years, we have had very difficult cutbacks to local services in our constituents. every time we make the case that it is a difficult economy and we do not have enough money, how do i explain to my constituents that we have 39 billion to get out from the treasury surplus to give to the european union when there is a question on whether we owe that money, and that she

not agree that this is not just about the european union, but a matter of social justice? >> i'm sure he will recognize that the government's commitments we have made in a number of areas on our public services in terms of increased funding, which do affect his constituents, i think reflects the need he has consistently raised in this house with government. i returned to the point i made previously about the financial sentiment that there are legal obligations that this country has. >> the prime minister must surely recognize she is dogging a dead horse. her to join forces with honorable members across all sides of this house to black a norway plus-based brexit.

it is the only option that protects jobs, salt the northern ireland issue and has the only chance of uniting our deeply divided country? >> can i do to the honorable gentleman that the option he has put forth is not on behalf of the british people, which is what i believe he should do. data about which is stated in the water can move on the rising tide, but if she is going to with her, she needs the time, and wouldn't meaningful a truly one would have the trade negotiations. pm may: can i face my honorable friend? the timing of the meaningful the needscts not only in the house but also the needs

to get the withdrawal agreement think whengh, and i he suggested delaying it until january. >> thank you, mr. speaker. the backstop applies to northern ireland, and of playing,not isn't it true that the citizens of gibraltar will have more rights than the citizens of this party? no, certainly in the commission's original proposal, it would happen the case that northern ireland would have been treated entirely differently from the rest of the united kingdom. we resisted, and that is what we have to u.k. territory, and it

was something that existed for many months, and that is in the backstop. cannot a tribute to my honorable friend on medication -- on her dedication and hard work. however, the backstop is implemented, britain would remain subservient for the eu for a very long time, if not forever? pm may: can i say to my right humble friend, and it first innk you for his comments regards to what i been doing, but i recognize that his concern has been raised. it is very clear if the

backstop is implemented that it is only temporary. the legal base cannot be used to set up a permanent arrangement, course,, ifally, of exercised, it is very clear the intent of developing future relationships in time, the back stop not to be used. speaker, 70% are able to trade goods and services holidays freeing of fees and red tape? some may describe this as a good deal.

isn't it true that it does little more than taking away the biscuit while leaving the nation the crumbs? isn't it her duty to tell us how much we leave in the nation, and why won't she do that? saying theyou are government is not going to produce economic analysis, we are. constituencys my that points out very firmly that the greatest enemy is uncertainty. they are now starting to tell me providedainty will be by wto terms because of the weakness of our organization vision was we exit. under the future arrangements. i say to my right honorable 20nt that she now has had months to prepare for there being a straight chance with the ade organization, a

chance to make sure that it was worked as effectively as possible by our european partners, as policy advocate, and certainly now as those preparations need to service and the european union engaged in those discussions. pm may: can i say to my right honorable front that businesses do love her uncertainty, because you withdraw the agreement and the implementation period, but an sure that they do have certainty going beyond the 29th of march next year. with regard to the world trade iganization of arrangements, am confident that we can have great arrangements with countries around the world, and the rains areis

not the best deals around the world, i think it is entirely right that we seek to pay. >> will be prime minister is pause totish brexit's t resolve disagreement? pm may: we will not be revoking article 15 or that, we will be meeting on march 29 next year. >> the withdrawal agreement was voted on by the majority rules. any future relationship will be

gone by 27th. spain will demand for walter and the republic of ireland may even demand northern ireland and the only alternative for the humiliating capitulations will be continued under the backstop. obviously the arrangements in relations to the backstop and the ceasing to apply are the withdrawal agreements, and that would be , of course if there are areas that admit fault, that will be part of it, so comfortable for the eu. >> thank you, mr. speaker.

will the prime minister look at the analysis by britain and the , through northern ireland, 66% of people wish to remain in in theopean union now field, and 422 constituencies will remain. willie prime minister listen to -- the will ofch the people, which has changed, and get a vote. pm may: this parliament gave the decision whether or not to leave the european union to the british people. now people are saying to me well, the british people have changed their minds. those who had voted to leave in

the first place might quite rightly say hang on a minute, we need another opportunity to vote on this. we decided to give the vote to the british people. we did that. they voted. and they should deliver on that vote. 2017, my right honorable clearly doingry business, it is created, she said we will bring it to the , and of justice in britain we are now seeing our country is likely to be treated differently. , and the dispute mechanism, if both sides cannot agree, the ec j will be the final. i would pointrse

out there are regulatory differences already in regulation to northern ireland from the rest of the united kingdom. it is not the case that it would be the european court of justice that would not determine. that is not what was set out in the withdrawal agreement. it is the arbitration panel that would be making the agreement, not the european court of justice. >> thank you, mr. speaker. prime minister refuses to say that her brexit deal will make britain better off. is she cannot guarantee to my constituents that they will not be worse off as a result of this deal, how can she asked me to vote for it? pm may: first of all, let me say our country will be better off outside the european union. the mistake is made by those that say the only issue about

our future prosperity is whether or not we are a member of the european union. i disagree with that. the issue about our future prosperity is about us, the government, and the take on our economy for the future and the talents of our people. i am optimistic about our prosperity throughout the european union. >> article 129, paragraph three, states the uk's shall refrain during the transition period from any action which is likely to be -- to the eu's interest. given that article, does this mean the u.k., for example, will be unable to cut taxes, to

regulate companies such as uber, and why is this clause not reciprocated by the eu? pm may: there is duty on the both sides to act on good faith during the implementation or transition period. it is not the case -- the united kingdom does not take, as a member of the european in today, we do not take a position on the united nation's security council. we sit there in our own right. the positions we take are taken as a united kingdom. to, my right honorable friend, and i will do that, but i do not believe the position that he set out is the correct interpretation. >> thank you, mr. speaker. prime minister said previously a head.ry steps into

does she think it is actually better than the one we have now? pm may: i have responded to others as well, i do believe our best days lie ahead of us, because of the challenge for our people, because of the information, because of the steps the government has taken to secure our economy. thank you very much, mr. speaker. i want to go on record with my support for the prime minister. [overlapping chatter] perfect, it does involve compromises, and it is a matter of judgment. people say to me they do not want to leave without a deal. there is no precedent for leaving the european union. this is not going to be perfect.

primeask the cameter to go kamaishi back -- to go, and she came with a deal. pm may: thank you, my right honorable friend. of course it is not 100% of what i would like, that's what negotiations are about, but i believe it is a good deal for the united kingdom. i believe it is the right deal for the united kingdom, and i believe it delivers were people on their vote and for the future. >> thank you, mr. speaker. the prime minister has frequently said nothing will be agreed until everything is agreed. looking to the political declaration, isn't not now clear that even in the unlikely event that this deal is agreed in its entirety, when it comes to really big issues about future economic insecurity operation with the european union,

absolutely nothing would be agreed to? pm may: no. on the legal text, and also in the past i have made clear the position in relation with the toopean union not being able find a treaty with the country in relation to the trade matters. >> 123,000 defense industry jobs nationwide. our security and that our lives the end on our defense industry being flexible with government involvement. and permanent backstop and the withdrawal agreement that would apply should the eu choose not to do arbitration what lies our defense industry to comply eu'seu's law from which defense firms are exempt. we get yet another

hostage to negotiate with and keep our sovereign ability in de fense? pm may: first of all, this is not a permanent backstop. hisndly, i do not share interpretation, the question of defense industry. the issue is a simple 1 -- in any trade agreement, we have come up with any country around the world, there would be tenements in relations to matters relating, such as state aid. we put forward a set of papers in the white paper in the summer, some arrangements that would be in other trade arrangements. it is not the case to say they will never be included in the trade arrangements. it is included in the trade arrangements. now that we can see the very best deal that the prime minister can negotiate will leave us worse off, will keep us

less safe, and is likely to be rejected as not in the best interest of our constituents, should she not, in honor, go back now to the people? >> hear hear. pm may: i prefer the honorable lady to the answer i have given all that question. >> thank you very much. thank you very much mr. speaker. ine prime minister has said her statement that the house can reject this deal and go back to square one. can she explain what square one means? pm may: i think we would go back to a period of significant division.y and it is important that we recognize we have a duty to deliver on the brexit vote, we have a duty to do that, taking and having it care for our constituent jobs, and this delivers on both. >> thank you, mr. speaker.

why is the 20 million pounds for the nhs, which is already been announced, now being spoke of an additional 394 million pounds a week? when we all know that the savings membership of the eu will be our way by additional cost that we participate. pm may: we will be putting x investment of 390 4 million pounds a week into our national health service. the funding for that will come from a number of sources, but we will be able to use the brexit evidence on priorities like nhs and other areas of public service priorities. >> one of the benefits of leaving the eu is the ability to find trade agreements with countries, but can she say what realistic prospect there is for that? firstly, well we remain within the customs union, but after that, when we had pledged to

maintain a deep and regulatory corporation covering goods, which are likely to drink as people want to sell to us? pm may: thank you, my right honorable friend. it is absolutely the case, first of all, that we will be able to sign free trade agreements from the rest of the world, and we already have significant interests are the world in relation to those. the point that my my right honorable friend makes, with a commitment, parliamentary log in relation to the good and agricultural products. many of those of course are the international standards. they are not just eu related sanders, they are standards that manufacturers would be abiding by in any case, and i think that is a key issue. we are to have good trade relations and agreements with countries around the rest of the world but also have a good trade relationship in agreement with the european union.

>> thank you, mr. speaker. since the referendum, many young people have, an come of age. pm's as rule out a second referendum under any circumstances that any time, and the next in general election will only be in 2022. i will ask the prime minister -- what is she afraid of? it will directly affect their future. pm may: the question is on the vote that took place in 2016. at any point in time, somebody can argue another cohort of young people have come of age age, so at a voting any point in time, if his argument follows, it could be set we need another vote. no, we had a vote in 2016, people voted, and we should deliver on it. >> rebecca powell.

>> thank you, mr. speaker. i met with the leader of a very important business in my constituency that employs in tradesof people an across the eu and you know what he said to me, mr. speaker? please do not jeopardize business. so what my right honorable that wegree with me cannot play games with business and we must have a deal while at the same time leaving the eu, because what people wanted -- and surely, my right honorable friend, this deal addresses both of those. pm may: can i think my right honorable friend for bringing the business to the house, and freeis exactly why the trade and customs arrangements lies at the heart of our future economic partnership.

this deals with brexit but does it in a way that allows business . >> thank you, mr. speaker. the prime minister loves telling us what the british people think , and it has become a face- saving exercise now. for eu nationals, 13,000, and for young people who want to study in liverpool, that and her jumpingmments about over tragedy, isn't it time for a fresh assessment of the will of the people, and gauge all electrics, not just the mp's, a say? the will of the people in june 2016 is no longer the will of the people? pm may: i refer to the answer i gave earlier.

>> matt prichard. >> thank you, mr. speaker. an indisputable fact that whether colleagues remain or leave that the declaration is not legally binding and the withdrawal agreement is legally binding? pm may: yes, my right honorable legallys right, it is binding. they cannot sign a legal text until that country as a member of the european union, they can only do it when we are outside of the european union. >> thank you, mr. speaker. it is increasingly clear that the prime minister does not have the support of this house -- prime minister's deal does not have the support of this house. it is a bad deal for the country. what is her plan b when this deal inevitably falls? pm may: i prefer the honorable

lady to the answer i have given earlier. i want to congratulate my right honorable friend for introducing alternative arrangements to the backstop within the lexicography of our brexit arrangement. that is no mere achievement. but can she say what will be done to identify those who are going to work on those agreements, whose budget has been set without work, and when the matches will be tried? give myi am not able to honorable friend an answer to all of those questions, that there are proposals that have forward to it. first of all, here in the u.k., we will be looking at those proposals, and the extent to isch they deliver on what

necessary, and we will have spoken with the european commission on the possibility of being able at an early stage to discuss wisdom, alternatives to both. >> thank you, mr. speaker. the prime minister and at least one of her cabinet ministers has said is the house rejects her deal, there is a chance of no brexit at all. and i wonder if she could spell out with greater clarity how this fear might be realized? pm may: thank you, the honorable gentleman, that he would have heard a number of individuals around the house today, including from his colleagues on the labour benches, who clearly express the views that they believe many in the european union is preferable to leaving the european union. i believe it is to deliver on the boat the people took to deliver brexit. >> we are going to leavth