study the official report, including to establish what was and what was not said by the honorable gentleman. i hope that that is helpful to him and he will now go about his business with an additional glint in his eye and spring in his step for the rest of the day. very good. if there are no further points of order -- >> c-span, where history unfold daily. in 1979 c-span was greater as a public service by america's cable-television companies and today we continue to bring you unfiltered coverage of congress, the white house, the supreme court and public policy events in washington, d.c. and around the country. c-span is brought to you by your cable or satellite provider. >> now back to the british house of commons in london for the announcement from my minister

theresa may this morning about details enter government rights of plans and the latest round of negotiations with the european union. her update to parliament follows an emergency meeting with her cabinet. >> thank you. >> order. statement, the prime minister. [shouting] >> thank you, mr. speaker. and with permission of like to update the house on our negotiation to leave the european union. first, i want to pay tribute to my right honorable friend the members, delivering brexit is difficult choices for all of us. we do not agree on all of those choices but i respect their views and i'd like to thank them

sincerely all that they have done. mr. speaker, yesterday we agreed on probation terms of her exit from the european union set out in the draft withdrawal agreement. we also agree the broad terms of her future relationship and outline political declaration. the president has written to the present of european council to recommend the decisive progress is been made in the negotiation. and special european council will be called for sunday, 25 december. this puts us close to a brexit deal. mr. speaker, what we agreed yesterday was not the final deal. it is a draft treaty -- [shouting] it is a draft treaty that means we will leave the eu in a smooth and orderly way -- [laughing] and which sets the framework for future relationship that delivers international interest. it takes back control of our borders, flaws and money.

it protects, it protects jobs, security and integrity of the united kingdom and the delivers in ways that many said could simply not be done. we were told we had a binary choice between the model of norway or the model of canada, that we could not have this deal. but the outline political declaration set out an arrangement that is better for our country and both of these, a more ambitious free trade agreement than the eu has with any other country. and we were told we were betrayed like any other third country on security cooperation, but the outline political declaration set out cooperation beyond anything the eu has agreed with any other country. so let me take the house to the details. first on the withdrawal agreement the full legal text has now been agreed in principle. principle. it sets out the terms of which

the uk will be the eu in 134 days time on the 29th of march, 2019. we have secured the rights of the more than 3 million eu citizens living in the uk and around 1 million uk nationals living in the eu. we have agreed a time-limited implementation that ensures businesses only have to plan for one set of changes. we have great protocol to ensure gibraltar and a southern basin areas are covered by withdrawal agreements and with a great after financial settlement far lower than the figures many mention at the start of this process. since the start of this process i've been committed to ensuring that her exit from the eu deals with the issue of the border between northern island and ireland. i believe this issue can best be sold throughout future relationship with the european union. but the withdrawal agreement sets out an insurance policy should that new relationship not be ready in time.

i do not pretend this is been accountable process or either all of the eu are entirely happy with all of the arrangements that it included with in it. but, of course, this is the case. this is an arrangement where both said we never want to have to use. but while some people might pretend otherwise, there is no deal which delivers the brexit british people voted for which it's not involve this insurance policy. not candida plus plus plus, not norway for now, not our own white paper. the eu will not negotiate any future partnership without it. as the house knows the original proposal from the eu was not acceptable as a what it meant creating a a customs border don the irish sea and breaking up the integrity of our united kingdom. the last month i set out for the

house before steps we needed to take. this is what we have now done and it is seen eu make a number of concessions towards our position. first, the eu proposal for northern ireland only customs solution has been dropped and replaced by f new uk wide temperate customs arrangement the protects integrity of our precious unions. second, we have created an option for a single time-limited extension of the implementation as an alternative to bring in the backstop. as i have said many times i do not want to extend the implementation. at they do not believe we will need to deal with that. this is about an insurance policy. but as it happens at the end of 2020, a future relationship is not quite ready, the uk will be able to make a choice between the uk wide temperate customs arrangement or short extension of the implementation period. there can withdrawal agreement to commit both parties to use best endeavors to ensure this

insurance policy is never used, and in the unlikely event it is needed if we choose the backstop, withdrawal agreement is explicit but it is temperate and that the article 50 cannot provide for a permanent relationship. there's also a mechanism by which the backstop can be terminated. finally we have ensured continued access for northern ireland businesses to the whole of the uk internal market. mr. speaker, the brexit talks are about acting in the national interest, and that means, and that means making what i believe to be the right choices, , not e easy ones. i know there are some who said i should simply rip up the commitment to backstop with this would've been an entirely irresponsible course of action. it would've meant reneging on a promise made to the people of northern ireland during the referendum campaign and afterwards that under no

circumstances would brexit lead to return to the borders of the past. and it would make it impossible to deliver it withdrawal agreement. as prime minister of united kingdom i have a responsibility to people in every part of our country, and i intend to honor that promise. mr. speaker, by resolving this issue when unable to move on to finalizing the details of an ambitious future partnership. the outline political declaration we've agreed set out the basis for these negotiations and we will negotiate intensively ahead of the european council to turn it into a full future framework. the declaration will and free movement once and for all. instead we will have our own immigration system based not on the country people come from but on what they can contribute to the uk. the declaration agrees the creation of a free trade area for goods with zero tariffs, no fees and charges or restrictions

across all goods sectors. no other major advanced economy has such an arrangement with the eu, and at the same time will also be free to strike new trade deals with other partners around the world. we have also reached common ground on a close relationship on services and investment, including financial services which go well beyond wto commitments. the declaration ensures we will be leaving the common agricultural policy and common fisheries policies. so we will provide how best to sustain and support our farms and our environment, and the uk will become an independent coastal state once again. we have also reached agreement on key elements of our future security partnership to keep our people safe. this includes swift and effective extradition a range of those arrangements for effective data exchange on passenger name records, dna, figure prints and vehicle registration data.

we have agreed a close and flexible partnership on foreign security and defense policy. mr. speaker, when i first became prime minister in 2016, there was no ready-made blueprint for brexit. many people said it could simply not be done. i never accepted that. i have been committed in that to delivering on the result of the referendum, and ensuring the uk leaves the eu absolutely and on time. but also said at the very start that withdrawing from eu membership after 40 years and establishing a wholly new relationship that would endure for decades to come with the complex and require hard work. i know it's been a frustrating process. it has made us solve some very difficult issues but a brexit which is in the national interest is possible. we have persevered and that made a decisive breakthrough.

once a final deal is agreed i will bring it to parliament and i will ask mps to consider the national interest and give it their backing. [shouting] voting against the deal will take us all back to square one. it would mean more uncertainty, more division and failed to deliver on the decision of the british people that we should leave the eu. if we get behind a deal we can bring our country back together and seize the opportunities that lie ahead. mr. speaker, the british people want as to get this done and to get on with addressing the other issues they care about. creating more good jobs in every part of the uk, doing more to help families with the cost of living, helping our nhs to provide first-class care and our schools to give every child a great start in life. and focusing every ounce of our energy on building a brighter future for our country. [shouting]

so, mr. speaker, the choice is clear. we can choose to leave with no deal. we can risk no brexit at all, or we can choose -- [shouting] >> or, or we can choose to unite and support the best deal that can be negotiated. this deal, a deal that ends free movement, take back control of our borders, linemate, delivers free trade, leaves the agricultural, policy and efficient policy him to lose an independent foreign defense policy while retaining the continued security cooperation to keep our people safe. maintain shared commitments to high standards, or text jobs come on the integrity of our united kingdom and delivers the brexit the british people voted for. i choose to deliver the british people. i choose to do what is in our national interest, and i commend this statement to the house.

[shouting] >> jeremy corbyn. >> thank you, mr. speaker. and i want to thank the prime minister for the advanced copy of her statements. the withdrawal agreement and the outline political declaration represent a huge and damaging failure. after two years of bungled negotiations, the government has produced a botched deal that breaches the prime minister's own red lines and does not meet our six tests. [shouting] the government, mr. speaker, is in chaos. there deal risk leaving the country and in the devon halfway house without a real say. when even the last brexit secretary who theoretically at least go should the deal says i cannot support the proposed deal.

what faith that they get anyone else in this place or in this country? the government simply cannot put a a part of this half-baked deal the both the brexit secretary and his predecessor have rejected. no deal is not a real option and the government has not seriously prepared for it. the government must publish its full legal advice and the treasury a full economic impact assessment of the deal and the opr and updated economic forecast. the withdrawal agreement is a leap in the dark and ill-defined deal by and never defined date. there is no mention of the prime minister's favorite term, implementation. implementation period anywhere in the 585 pages of this document. and no wonder, there is -- spells out in either the agreement or the political

declaration. article iii of the agreement states transition can be extended to end by 31st of december, 20xx. can the prime minister confirm that this permits extensions to be rolled on until 2099? can the prime minister confirm that if the uk government cannot agree a comprehensive future relationship by january 2021, which you believe would be possible, and the last two years gives us no confidence this government can, then those negotiations with half to be put on hold? because the focus within inevitably shift from negotiations on the future relationship to negotiations on an extension of the transition. , including further payments to the eu.

article 132 article 132 sets ats fairly clearly. so can the prime minister firstly tell the house how confident she is that a deal can be done at the end of 2020? and also confirm that if a new trade agreement is not agreed by the 31st of december 2020 then article 132 applies paying a huge financial contribution in order to extend the transition period, if we are to avoid triggering the backstop as the prime minister insists his or position. on the backstop itself, should it come into force there is no time limit or in the point. and if either party request a review and if there is no agreement it goes to independent arbitration. the backstop locks britain into deal from which it cannot leave without the agreement of the eu. in the backstop restrictions on state aid are hardwired in with

an arbitration mechanism, but no such guarantee exists for workers' rights. can the prime minister also confirm that the backstop applies separate regulatory rules to northern ireland, creating a de facto border down the irish sea as norther ireland will be subject to the customs union but not the rest of the uk? this is despite the fact the current prime minister said this is something, and i quote, no uk prime minister would ever agree to. another of her red lines breached. in fact, the list of eu measures they continue to apply to the uk respective norther ireland runs the 68 pages of the agreement. this affects the vat declaratis and rules origin checks. and it's clear the prime minister's redline regarding the jurisdiction of the european court of justice has also been

torn up. by 2021 under the prime minister's plan will either be in the backstop or still in transition period we will can continue to contribute to the eu budget. it is utterly far-fetched for the prime minister to say this plan means we take control over our loss, money and borders. after two years of negotiation all the government has really agreed is a vague seven-page outline a political declarations which looks like a substantial dilution of the prime minister's previously declared the go shading priorities. there is only the sketches mention of workers' rights, consumers rights, or environmental protection. no determination to achieve frictionless trade or even trade as frictionless as possible. no ambitions to negotiate a new comprehensive customs union that

would protect trade, jobs and industry. and so uncertainty continues to business and all those that work in those businesses. that risks decision for investment being deferred even further costing jobs and living standards, and many company may decide the lack of certainty simply mean they leave brexit. no clear plan to get a a strono with a single market to ensure continued access to european markets and services, merely a vague command to go beyond the baseline of the world trade organization. both the first ministers of wales and scotland made clear to the prime minister that participation in the customs union to protect the economy and jobs was essential. likewise, mr. speaker, there is no ambition to achieve continuation of the european wide arrest warrant or an equivalent, and no clarity about our status with europol, you're just or even the galileo

project. i know it's no clarity of any future immigration system between the uk and eu. on following the wind rush scandal mean eu nationals here would have no confidence, no confidence at all in this government to deliver a fair and efficient system. the brexit secretary promised a substantial document. he's obviously no longer here. so can the prime minister from the house when the detailed framework agreement will be with us? mr. speaker, this is not the deal the country was promised and parliament cannot and i believe will not accept a false choice between this bad deal and no deal. >> hear, hear. >> people around the country will be feeling anxious of this morning about the industries they work in, the jobs they hold, , about the stability of

their communities and their country. the government must now withdraw this half-baked deal which is clear does not have the backing of the cabinet, this parliament, or the country as a whole. >> thank you. thank you, mr. speaker. now to pick up some the point the right honorable judge been made. of all he comments, he says no deal was not an option but then says complaints we were not prepared for any deal. we have been preparing for no deal and we continue to prepare for no deal because i recognize that we have a further stage of negotiation with the european council and then that deal when finalize with the european council has to come back to this house. so we will continue those preparations. he says of that the withdrawal agreement is ill-defined. 500 pages of detailed legal tax on the withdrawal agreement is not an ill-defined withdrawal

agreement. he complains the withdrawal agreement does not refer to the instrumentation. but it does refer to the transition period which is exactly the same point of time. he talks about, he can talk about the whole question of the decision on the backstop and the implementation period as come at the end of december 2020. well, if you looks again at documents that have been produced he will see the decision will be taken in june 2020 as to whether it is likely that the future relationship will not be fully a place on the first of january 2021 and a decision would be for the uk decide whether it wishes to extend the ample mentation. for limited or whether it wishes to go into the backstop. he is wrong in saying we have an absolutely -- [shouting] >> he is wrong, he is wrong in saying, he is wrong in saying

that we will not dealt with the issue with the ireland and i receive. took some considerable time just persuade the european union to move from its proposal for northern ireland only customs territory to a uk wide customs territory but we have achieved that. in relation to the question of workers' rights, there is reference to non-aggression in relation to workers' rights. he says the protocols that outline the political declaration does not have references to what we have proposing in terms of a free trade area for the future. in fact, that is specifically what it does reference in the protocol but it sets out very clearly that we will be creating a free trade area between the united kingdom and the european union. and then i am really not sure what document the right animal gentlemen read because he says there wasn't references to

extraditions. extradition. there are indeed references to expedition and he said, he said also he says was nothing about europol whereas there's expressly a reference that will be including in the future document terms of united kingdom cooperation via your paul and euro just. i say to the right honorable gentleman that is indeed a choice between, choice before members of this house. it is a choice of whether or not we go ahead with the deal that does deliver on the vote while protecting jobs, while protecting our security and while protecting our unions. of course with what a much other than once is just in the single market estate in the customs union which would not deliver on the vote of the referendum. we are delivering free of it, out of the common agricultural policy, out of the cfp and taking back control of our

money, borders and our laws. that is the right deal and it is that you will be putting forward before this house. >> mr. speaker, it's always been an illusion that the country can leave the trees, the european union treaties, whilst selecting to retain all the benefits that we enjoy under the treaties and repudiating most if not all of the obligations, and we have to face up to the fact that that is an illusion. does the prime minister agree that the biggest single economic benefit that most of the main benefits that we've enjoyed from our membership over the last decades flow from the completely open the border between the whole of the united kingdom and the rest of the european union? and that has been based huge flows of inward investment, the

creation of just in time lines of supply, and very many, thousands of jobs in this country. so will she undertake that we will not change the present basis of that, which is the single market in the customs union, until we know what we are changing due? and until we're satisfied that any change will retain those benefits and keep completely open from any delays and cost by regulatory differences or anything else which will be created by moving away from where we are now, and threaten the economic future of this country very considerably if we just decide unilaterally to walk out at some of my colleagues seen prepared to recommend? >> we have indeed heard from

this is a very clear message about the importance for frictionless borders which is precisely why the proposal that the united kingdom has put forward to the european union is based on the concept of frictionless borders. and the free-trade areas that we have put forward is a cicely in that frame. my right honorable learned friend talks will remain in the single market in the customs union or i do not believe that is right for the future of united kingdom because i do not believe that doing those things would deliver on the vote of the british people. i think british people wanted, there are various that underpins the vote, also remain in the customs union does not enable us to have an independent trade policy. it's important we do have an independent trade policy once we let the european union. it's based on the concept of a free trade area precisely the point he makes about being able to move goods seamlessly across the border.

>> thank you, mr. speaker. can i think the prime minister for advanced sight of her statement. mr. speaker, that trying three comes before us today trying to sell us a deal that is already dead in the water. not even her own brexit secretary could stand over us. now, mr. speaker, to lose one brexit sector is one thing. to lose to make an a matter of months a lumen is the chaotic process. it is become a revolving door. .. what is absolutely shocking is

scotland is not once mentioned in the document. not once. not once unique characteristics of scotland is mentioned. >> order! the party must be heard. and heard, and indeed really grateful for your observation, but i don't think they greatly add to the quality of our deliberations. everybody will be heard. mr. ian blackford. >> here. >> thank you, mr. speaker. not once has scotland's unique characteristics been mentioned yet, 100 mentions of northern ireland, of gibralter, to the isle of mann, but no mention of scotland. and once again it's been shown

to be, the scotland government and parliament and its people. mr. speaker, the deal for northern island means scotland can have its own deal. if northern ireland can stay in the single market, why not scotland, prime minister? the scottish government has published compromise documents calling for justice, the scottish parliament affirmed that position. why does the prime minister ignore the democratically expressed position of the scottish government? what has happened to the claim of a partnership of equals? why are the desires of scotland being ignored when we know that a settlement can be delivered? why does the prime minister stand in the face of the legitimate demands of the scottish government and the scottish parliament? well, you know, the prime minister can shake her head,

but as a matter of fact it's a matter of reality. show some respect. well, you can bay and you can shout and why was the scottish government not consulted just as gibralter was before the prime minister went to cabinet yesterday? mr. speaker, the price scotland would be forced to pay is far too high, with household incomes slashed and under threat. now is the time to get realistic and put sensible options back on the table. such is the meaning in the single market. mr. speaker, the only credible compromise for which the fnp has consistently made the case for. this deal is dead in the water. it's now clear there's not a majority for this deal or

another deal. the prime minister must go back to brussels and extend, and tell brussels that we must remain in the single market in the customs union. anything else, mr. speaker, will lead to economic chaos and crisis. prime minister, do the right thing and we will work with you. stop the clock and go back to brussels. the prime minister-- >> all right. to pick up two key points the gentleman makes. he made a reference to scotland's nhs being under stress. and nhs depends on the s & p and no good pointing his finger at me. we ensure in that the settlements means more money comes to scotland and scotland not to chose on the nhs, that's

an snp decision. >> order, order! i protected the right honorable gentleman quite properly a moment ago when he was being breyed at in an unseemly manner. but asking said that they must hear the prime minister's reply with courtesy. don't worry, everybody will get a chance, but the prime minister's responses must be heard with a basic courtesy and respect. prime minister. >> thank you. thank you, mr. speaker. i was going to pick up the points he made with regard to northern island. northern island is not staying in the single market. what is in the document is in order to ensure the friction trade across the border between ireland and northern ireland, northern ireland will be meeting those regulations specifically in the good parts, but it's not staying a member of the single market. and he talks about scotland

being given the same treatment as northern ireland. northern ireland has a very particular set of circumstances. it is the only part of the united kingdom that will have a land order with the country continuing as a member of the european union and that is why, that is why together with our commitments in the belfast agreement, that's why northern ireland is dealt with, is dealt with separately in the withdrawal agreement and then finally, he complains, much of his statement was a complaint that scotland was not specifically mentioned in the document. scotland is not specifically mentioned. scotland is a part of the united kingdom. >> mr. ian duncan smith. . >> can i say that i have always wished well to my right honorable friend and my question is, in this light. i have deep, deep misgiving on

reading much of this overnight. that there is a real issue with the way that we will be treated with the backstop and i say to her that when you read this, you realize that we are locking ourselves in to an arrangement from which we seem unable therefore to have the sovereign right to withdraw. that seems to me to be the biggest single issue here which strips away the one thing that we said when we wanted to vote for leaving was that we took back control. so can i say to my right honorable friend, my concern is that we have the sovereign right when we want to leave the u.n. we have the sovereign right when we want to leave nato. we have the sovereign right when we want to leave the eu, but we do not have the sovereign right to leave this arrangement. >> prime minister. >> my right honorable friend for this, and he said the references to the backstop do raise some difficult issues and i fully accept that they raise some difficult issues, and i

fully accept that across the house there are concerns in relation to the backstop. i share those concerns and these have not been easy decisions to take. it has been necessary in any deal that we were striking for our future bipartisanship with the european union that it has been clear and we want to be sure that we deliver no hard border between ireland and northern ireland and that needed to include this insurance policy. but if i may say to my right honorable friend, first of all he talks about being held in the backstop. first of all, the backstop is not necessarily what will happen because we want to ensure that the future relationship is in place before the backstop is necessary. second secondly, it will be a choice whether it were to go in that circumstance, whether there was a temporary. an interim period needed before the future relationship came into play and we will be able

to choose a preference between the backstop and the implementation period. there are pros and cons on both of those sides of the argument and there will be honorable members who have a belief that one is better than the other. there is a mechanism for coming out of the backstop if the backstop is in place, coming out of the protocol. he's right it does require mutual consent. it's for both sides to agree that. it is, and i won't make any-- you know, i won't make any bones about that, but it does enable that backstop to be replaced in a number of circumstances. firstly, crucially, if the future relationship that precedes it, it used to be the case, it was the case originally that that was the only point of which it could be superced superceded, now and now alternatives could replace it. but i repeat what i've always, it is my intention to work to

ensure that such an arrangement is not necessary and we are able to go into our future relationship when we come out of the implementation. >> the prime minister rightfully asserts there are two alternatives to her plan, no deal and no -- the government is investing considerably in contingency plan for no deal. what contingency planning is she doing for no brexit? including, for example, advising the commission that article 15 may have to be withdrawn and she, herself is preparing for the fact, however much she hates it, that they may instruct her to carry out the people's vote. >> can i say-- >> prime minister. >> and what plans we are making no no brexit. we are making no plans for no brexit because this government is going to deliver on the votes of the british people.

>> john. we took the best part of 39 billion over the next years and spent it on services and tax cuts, wouldn't that be a wonderful boost to the public, and better way of spending the money than 21 months-- >> order, order! this is extremely discourteous. the right honorable gentleman has a right to be heard without being shouted down while he's speaking. i ask the right honorable gentleman to state the question again. >> wouldn't it be better if we spend that money on ourselves rather than on 21 months of delay, massive business uncertainty, and something which would sour the political and the public mood for the whole time period? >> prime minister. >> i say to my right honorable friend, as i said very early stage of these negotiations, the united kingdom is a country which meets its legal

obligations. that says a great deal about the sort of country that we are. and there are legal obligations, as i said, in my statement that sum of money that was in the european union we would be required to pay as part of the financial settlement, but i remain firmly. few that this is a country that should ensure we continue to meet our legal obligations and we will do so. >> mr. nigel. >> mr. speaker, i could today stand here and bring the prime minister through the list of promises that she made and to us privately, about the future of northern ireland and the future relationship with eu. i fear would be a waste of time since she clearly doesn't listen. and can i say today, that this house now has a clear choice and every member in it, that this house has been left in a

position where the choices subject to those who don't have our interests at heart and northern ireland and those-- talked about the threat to integrity to the union and congratulate them for what they've said and done and their strong actions. and 39 billion has just been said for nothing. the choices clear, we stand up for the united kingdom, the whole of the united kingdom, the integrity of the united kingdom or vote for a vassal state with the breakup. >> prime minister. >> can i say to -- i will respond to the right honorable gentleman and he's right he and i have had many discussions on this issue and i hope that we will continue to be able to have many discussions on this issue. we have been ensuring

throughout the negotiations that the issue of the border in northern ireland has been one of the key issues that we have been addressing. he referred to the commitments i made in terms of northern ireland and the future relationships. those commitments remain absolutely. we are looking to ensure that we have trade across borders, but both will enable not only us to deliver on our commitments in northern ireland, but also enable us to have assure at that we have the trade between the united kingdom and the european union as the whole of the rest of the european union as well. i believe that -- and there are many aspects of the deal that we have agreed, but actually ensure that we are reserving the integrity of the united kingdom with a significant focus on the question of the backstop. as i say, the backstop isn't something which neither side, neither the united kingdom nor the european union wish to ever

see being exercised. but there are and indeed in the circumstances said where there needs to be a period before the future relationship is introduced, there are alternative routes that can be taken, but if the right honorable gentleman says to me he's concerned that we have not considered northern ireland throughout this process, well, i'm grateful to him that he's said that because i have remained committed to delivering on two things in northern ireland, both no hard border between northern ireland, i'm sorry, three things, no hard border between northern ireland and ireland, and for us to be able to maintain and respond to our obligations under the belfast agreement and protect the integrity of the united kingdom. >> and mr. speaker, mr. speaker, nobody, but nobody can doubt the prime minister's absolute commitment and dedication to doing her duty

and trying to deliver on the referendum, but the harsh cruel truth of it is that this is not the promised deal. the reason why the people of this country are so fed up is because they've been made so many promises, none of which have been delivered upon because they can't be delivered upon. i agree with the prime minister. we face three choices. we either accept this agreement and i respectfully suggest there is now no majority for it and we have no deal which would be profoundly irresponsible and catastrophic for our country. or we have no brexit. we remain in the european union, the best deal that we have with the european union. and on that basis, would she add least today undertake not to rule out taking this back to the british people and having-- >> prime minister. >> i'm afraid on that

particular issue i will disappoint by right honorable friend. i'm not going to change the position i've taken in this house and indeed taken more widely. i believe that it is the duty of members of this parliament to ensure that we deliver on the choice that was made by the british people, a choice that this parliament overwhelmingly decided to give them. that means that we will not see taking the option she said in the european union. and that be march 29th of next year. >> the prime minister has once again told the house we will be leaving the union, but the truth is we will be remaining in a customs union both in the transition and in the backstop arrangement which can only be ended with the agreement at the eu and the truth is also the only way to protect jobs investment and an open border in northern ireland in the

long-term is to remain within it. will the prime minister now look the british people in the eye and admit that remaining in the customs union is in our national economic interest because without it, we will be poorer as a country? >> what is in our national interest is ensuring that we continue to have a good trading partnership with the european union once we have left. that's why we've put forward a proposal which is reflected in the outline political declaration for a free trade area in goods. it is why we have also put forward a proposal which would ensure the friction trade good across the border. the right honorable gentleman and i disagree. a customs union is not the only way to ensure that we continue to have a good trading relationship with the european union. we've put forward a proposal that's reflected in the outline political declaration to do that and as ensuring we're taking advantage of an independent trade policy.

>> thank you, mr. speaker. >> these 585 pages are a testament to broken promises, failed negotiations and abject capitulations for eu. will my right honorable friend understand that they have represented a list of failures, indefinite extension of times, custom, full independence of trade and above all, are truly leaving the eu because they will -- and there have been furthermore some very famous speeches of ministerial responsibilities, the ministerial code and collective responsibility? >> minister. >> my honorable friend, to say what we are-- what we are looking at here is a withdrawal agreement which determines the withdrawal of the united kingdom from the

european union and which identifies the scope and structure of our future relationship. our future relationship is one that will not see the european union controlling our laws because there will be in those areas where we choose to align with the european union, it will be for this parliament to decide that and that will be a decision that will therefore be taken here by the united kingdom. there will not be european court of justice, jurisdiction in the united kingdom and that's what we've negotiated in the outline for our future relationship, but i recognize, i recognize my honorable friend has one of the members of this house who has campaigned on this issue, probably since the day, maybe even since before he came into this house. and has continued to campaign on this issue with a passion. and i recognize the concerns

that he has -- the concerns that he has expressed. as prime minister and as a government, it is our duty to ensure that we put together a deal that both respects the votes of the british people and in the way that i have said, and through movements, also, and does so in a way that protects jobs. that's why i believe it's important not only that we take back control in the areas mentioned, but that we maintain a good trading relationship with the european union as well as good trading relationships elsewhere. that's in our economic interest, in our national interest and that's what we will deliver. >> the political declaration includes the passenger name records and fingerprints data base, but makes no reference to the crucial criminal data base which we check 500 million times a year or to the european arrest parents, at a time when cross-border time and security threats are at their highest

ever levels. the prime minister shoes that these measures stop criminals and stop terrorism. so, how can she, of all people, say with her head and her heart that this public safety downgrade is in the national interest? >> prime minister. >> right honorable lady. first of all, there's reference to us agreeing, quick and effective arrangements to enable that for those persons expeditiously. that will be part of exact the measure, the instrument used will be part of the negotiations that take place. she's right, this is important to us. there are two further areas of information which those will be matters that we will be taking forward with the european union in our negotiations.

>> mr. speaker, i greatly respect the prime minister's efforts in seeking to achieve an agreement. i don't believe it's a good deal for britain's long-term future and she recognizes she had to make choices. there are clearly three choices for our country they're crucial especially for young people they have to live with those choices for the longest. the prime minister said this is in the national interest so why not allow people in our nation to have their say now? if it was good enough before why isn't it good enough now? >> prime minister. >> can i say to my right honorable friend and indeed, obviously, this is our right honorable friend raised this issue as past members on the opposite benches. this house chose to ask the people of the united kingdom whether they wish to remain in the european union or leave the

european union. there was an overwhelming vote in parliament to do that. there was an overwhelming vote in parliament to do that. it was about 6-1, anybody who says it wasn't overwhelming is wrong. the british people exercised their vote. they exercised their vote in numbers that we have never seen before. the result of that vote was that we should leave the european union and it's always been my view, as i've seen in other european-- on other european issues, other countries, other member states of the european union taking matters back to their populous, the voting coming out against the european union and the second vote go back and think again vote. i don't think it's right that we should do that in this country. we gave people a choice, we should deliver on the decision they took.

it's quite clear we've been going for about an hour now, not a single honorable member has supported the plans that the prime minister has set out. so, it's quite clear she cannot command the house of commons on these proposals. in fact, almost asking if the honorable members would put their hands up if they actually do support the prime minister on this set of proposals. not one, not one. in which case, she says that remaining in the european union is an option, how can the british people fulfill that choice, if that's what they choose? choose? >> prime minister. >> i think, sorry, i apologize i didn't quite hear the-- i think the right honorable gentleman said staying in the european union was an option, but, no, no, i said dd i said

there was a risk of no brexit. i said theres' a risk of no brexit at all. so what the government is determine to do, on the british people to leave the european union. >> here, here. >> mr. speaker. my right honorable question and she's unquestionably honorable, said that we would use the customs union and two says otherwise. my right honorable friend says she would maintain the integrity of the united kingdom. a whole protocol says otherwise. my right honorable friend shade we would be out of the european court of europe justice. article says otherwise and what my right honorable friend says and does does not match.

should i not write to my right handwrittenable friend -- right honorable friend. >> can i say to my honorable friend, can i say to my honorable friend, we will indeed -- he has referred to the articles that relate to the protocol in the withdrawal agreement. i have been absolutely clear that some difficult choices had to be made in relation to that protocol. those choices have to be made because i believe, and i strongly and firmly believe it is important that we do ensure that there is no hard border between northern ireland and ireland. but as i've said before. my honorable friends have heard me say before, it's not only our intention, but working to make sure that that protocol does not need to be put in

place. what we are negotiating, alongside that withdrawal agreement, is not something that will be of a temporary nature, but what will be a nassing future relationship with the european union, which will lost for decades to come. the and in that future relationship we will no longer be a member of the customs union. no longer a member of the single market. the integrity of the united kingdom will have been maintained and the european court of justice will end and we will come out of the common agricultural policy and common fishery's policies. as i ask my honorable friends to consider the future of the relationship we will be deliver with the european union that does indeed on the commitments

that i've made. >> jonathan edwards. >> potentially swimming in the deep end of the pool, can she confirm that the british government's whole logic, no economic borderen my country decided-- . [laughter] >> can i say to the honorable gentleman, of course we're conscious as we look at the proposals for trading relationship between the yu nighted kingdom and european union i'm-- aware of the trade between them. and we have looked at the protection of the welch port and looking at a trading relationship in the future. >> to our honorable friend that

the majority in the country, in this parliament accept the results of the referendum, and we back her in trying to get the sovereignty she's argued for. the prospect of prosperity, security and a fruitful partnership across the channel and the world, it will turn, if we don't go toward this, the possibility of crashing out and a government by the opposition. neither of which is an alternative. >> and i believe, as i think he does, that it is important for us to move forward not only in delivering on the votes, but ensuring to do so in a way that does protect our prosperity, protect people's jobs and livelihoods for the future, but more than that, there are significant opportunities for this country and once we lead the european union for those

trading relationships around the world and also trading relationships with our closest partners in the eu. >> will the prime minister now recognize that she made a catastrophic error when she decided to kowtow to the extremist believes of the brexiteers of her own party. that bad views are impossible to actually bringing about and they are now opener plotting against her as she has tried to do her best in this negotiation. surely, she now needs to listen to the fact that there is no majority in this town for the botched deal that she has brought back. think again and see whether in this house there can be a consensual way forward which

leaves her brexitremists in the cold where they belong. >> i will say to the honorable lady, i kowtow to no one. the instruction i take is the instruction given to everybody in this house on the referendum in 2016. >> thank you. it may surprise, but i agree with my honorable friend. prime minister, the whole house accepts that you have done your best, but the labor party have made plain today that they will vote against this deal. the snp, the liberals will vote against it. the dup will vote against it. our key ally in this place will vote against it. over 18--

back then, it's 84 now and going up by the hour, will vote against it. it is therefore mathematically impossible to stig this teal through the house. the stark reality, mrs. prime minister, it was dead before you stood up. i plead with you, i plead with you to accept the political realities of the situation you now face. >> prime minister. >> the honor-- can i say to the honorable gentleman, i respect the fact that he holds very clear views on our membership of the european union and the sort of relationship that we should have with the european unions thereafter. we will go forward for the final negotiations towards that

council meeting. and when it comes back, it will be for the members of the house not just to look at the details of that, but to consider the vote of the british people, to consider to deliver on the vote of the british people. this is t this is the deal and the vote will come, as they determine how to cast that vote. and when they cost it, ensuring that we deliver on the will of the british people. >> ben bradshaw. >> the prime minister will be aware the main financial backer is now-- with the criminal -- the sorts of money that he spent on the lead home campaign. did she request that mr. bank

be investigated? >> prime minister. >> i would say to the right handwritten -- honorable gentleman that we do not comment on individual investigations that take place. >> and thank you, mr. speaker. there are many ironies in this whole brexit partners, that on these benches, we voted on and receive a torrent of an abuse, and treachery, a slet of deselection. >>, but we've heard so many times we are where we are. i want to pay tribute to the fact that the prime minister did get agreements in cabinet. and regardless of however many thr between now and that vote, an agreement will come to parliament and parliament will have its day and voting for that agreement is in the

national interest. >> can i say to my friend. >> prime minister. >> that i can give mer assurance that obviously we have the set of the european union final lizzing a deal, when indeed people went to parliament. as i figured earlier, it will be every member of the house to determine the interest. >> the prime minister has carried out permission on this with no small sense of duty, but it has been a failure and turned out to be a humiliation. this was sold to the people as taking back control. the promises of the right wing nationalists have been shown. instead we're asked to sign off control of vast parts of our economy with no say over them, tens of billions for the privilege. is it not the case that far from taking back control, this

is the biggest voluntary surrender of a sovereignty in living memory and i ask you to think again. >> prime minister-- >> my answer to his question is no. we look at the 39 billion, the financial settlement in withdrawal agreement which is -- which is part of the overall package of the withdrawal agreement and the future relationship and the future relationship that we are negotiating with the european union is designed, and the political declaration makes it clear, to move on the issues for the british people when they voted for brexit. of course, as i've said repeatedly many times in this house. nothing is agreed until everything is agreed. >> steve baker. >> completely intolerable and i feel confident in the unlikely event that legislation before it reaches this, will be

ferocio ferociously. and by the government having no deal imposed upon it at the last minute. will she trigger the contingency of no deal now? >> prime minister. >> i say to my honorable friend that as i indicated earlier, i think in response to a previous question, we will be -- we will be continuing the no deal preparations because i'm conscious we have to go in this process, the european-- bringing it back to this house recognizing not only a meaningful vote, but the legislation has to go through. as i said earlier, recognizing we've got european counsel and preparations. >> mr. speaker, while it might be tempting to watch the

brexit, this is seriously stuff. the prime minister knows her analysis means that every single one of her plans means people losing their jobs. so will she work at the plant with the least number of jobs, which is the least damaging and unlike her plan would support -- and that's supporting the customs union and the single market. >> prime minister. >> we will be leaving the customs union and leaving the single market. >> whether we remain or leech or whether we sit on this side of the house or that, we know that millions of people voted for brexit because they're anxious about their futures, about their children and fair families. away from the westminster bubbles, we have to consider the community, and we know it

will be no deals most damaging to them. >> can i ask the prime minister what the response has been from the business council that she set up, those major employers in the country that will protect those jobs? >> prime minister. >> i thank my right honorable friend for focusing people's life on people outside of this chamber because that is -- they are the people we must consider when we are looking at our decision in relation to this, to this deal when it comes forward. can i just say there's been quite a number of quotes that have come from industry about the -- about the deal and about the fact that, for example, it delivers a clear path ahead that they so desperately need. that it brings with them some certainty and our bizes ha-- businesses have. and they've seen concerns that

we focus on that free trade area and on that fictionous trade across borders which is exactly what this governor has done. >> frank. >> can the prime minister guarantee to the house at the end of march we will continue to have frictionous supply chains and at the end of the protest we will be in control of our borders and bring back the judicial powers that we have surrendered and we will be put in the european-- >> can i say-- >> prime minister. >> can i say to the right honorable gentleman, that the future relationship we're with the european union, the points he made. taking control of our border, free movement has ended. we've based the concept of the free trade, goods to ensure that the people whose jobs

depend on those supply chains do not see those jobs go, but we're not only able to remain those jobs, but with the other trade agreements we're bringing forward outside of the european union we will create more jobs in this country. >> sir nicholas. mr. speaker, may i congratulate the prime minister on her exceptional efforts to honor the results of the referendum and achieve the deal under the court and demanding circumstances. and will she elaborate on the scale and breadth of the futch par futch-- future. there are two areas of security, one is internal security, i've answered a number of questions where we intend to maintain cooperation in a number of areas, where we're currently working very closely with our european partners. the section is in security and

defense. under foreign policy it will be for our decisions, but what we've negotiated and send out in the political declaration, aibility a, where it makes sense to do so and working with our european partners on security and defense. and issues of sinkses. it makes sense that-- simply the european unit, the u.k., we have v-our intern-- and that's what retains our independence, but also ensures that we're able to act all time in the best interests of the united kingdom and the best interests of maintaining our security and defense. >> and the prime minister notes the deal is dead and notes that the deal would be a disasterment we risk chaos and environmental rules tore up.

and that was never the will of the people. they did not vote for that. this isn't a parlor game, it's real people's real lives. and the risk can only be addressed if we put aside party politics so i appeal to her again, why will she not give the people of the country a people's vote? >> prime minister. >>. >> let me repeat the answer i had given earlier. which is that this parliament gave the people a vote to leave and we will deliver on the people's vote. >> sir edward lee. >> with respect to my honorable friend, i believe that she is issues are so complex that we should not deal with them on a personal basis, but my question is this, will she help me in my-- what if the brexit secretary is right? what if his resignation letter,

devastating resignation letter is correct that we are likely or possibly going to be locked permanently in a backstop arrangement? what if, therefore she loses the department which is likely, can she promise whatever happens in this vote that she will deliver brexit by the end of march? >> prime minister. >> can i say to -- can i say to my honorable friend we will be leaving the european union in march of 2019 and determine that we will deliver on that, whatever happens, whatever happens in between. in relation to this question of whether or not were we to be in the backstop, as i've said, the backstop is not an arrangement that i decide, actually, want to see being operated, that it was no more than temporary,

that the aspects to this, i will draw his attention to one or two of those. first of all, the-- it's not possible under article 50, legal basis under which this is set. britain has a permanent relationship for the future and explicitly referred to within the withdrawal agreement that it does not establish a permanent relationship and that's inherent in the article 15 legal base and say to my honorable friends, one of the things we have got removed from this, from this protocol is the idea that they're at one stage if we've moved onto the future relationship and the british government chose to change that future relationship that the back stop can be reins certificated, it cannot be. once it's superceded, it cannot be-- >> can i congratulate the prime

minister? she's said-- can she say hand on heart whether she believes what she negotiated is better than the deal we have now? >> prime minister. >> i firmly believe that this country's best days are ahead of it. we will get a good deal in the european union. we will get pa good deal with the european union and take advantage of our independence outside of the european union with our trade deals around the rest of the world. >> and my allegiance to the country-- does my honorable friend agree there would come adu difficult moment when the theory would be with-- and country with difficult leadership at this time. >> can i take my right

honorable gentleman-- i do agree with him. this is a complex negotiation, this is a complex negotiation. it does require difficult choices to be made and the challenge for all of us in this house is to make those choices not according to what we wish the world could be like, but to the reality of the world that we see. and to make those pragmat pragmatically. >> the prime minister insist that is this deal is in the national interest. so specifically on the economy, the agreement will ensure that we have no say in the rules which govern how we trade. it does not include services and frictionless trade and offers the illusion of a future trade deals. given this, does the treasury believe we'll create more or

less jobs or with the current relationship with the european union. >> the lady refers to the withdrawal agreement. what is important in terms of the relationship that will persist for decades between this country and the european union is the future of the partnership that we negotiate with the eu. that's as we've said the outline of the declaration is based on the concept of a free trade area and ensuring that we continue to have that good trade relationship and i can assure her as i've assured honorable members across the house before when the meaningful vote is before this house, members will have the appropriate analysis in order to inform them in turning to their decision. >> dr. sarah wallace. >> it would be blindingly obvious to the entire country that the prime minister's deal cannot pass this house. what we will find unforgivable is that we're running out of rows and in 134 days crushing out of the european union with

no deal and no transition, with catastrophic consequences for all the unions that we represent in this house. could i urge the prime minister again to think again about whether at this stage we should go back to the people, present them with the option, rather than just stumble on regardless into something that will have such profound implications for all of our lives? >> prime minister. >> the nature of the brexit, of our future relationship with the european union will be a matter, of course, that will come before this house in the votes that this house will take and members of this house will have various issues to consider when they take that vote. but i would say to my honorable friend, as i have said to other honorable members, honorable and right honorable members of this house that i firmly believe that having given the choice whether we should leave the eu to the british people

it's right and proper and indeed our duty as a parliament and as a government to deliver on that vote. >> kendall. >> we now know that during the transition, which may well have to be accepted, but the uk will give up our say over the rules and a large part of our economy. and if the backstop comes into play we won't unilaterally be able to leave it. how is giving up our current say and influence for no say and influence taking back control? >> i say to the honorable lady that indeed what she describes in relation to the transition period was clear. i've answered questions in this house on it way back in march when the european council agreed to the concept of the transition period so that was absolutely clear. the point of that transition period is moving towards the future relationship and the future relationship is one in which we will have the ability to determine our position.

yes, we put forward a proposal in the white paper which has ficti fictionless trade and common rule book. aside that common rule book is parliament law whether or not this country would accept any changes in a rule. >> thank you, mr. speaker. the government is preparing to give 39 billion pounds to the eu. and there's no legal obligation to do so. and we are going to get nothing in return. that is 60 million pounds for each and every constituency in this country. sir, if i had 60 million pounds, i would have the roads mended properly, an urgent care center at the hospital. and i would have millions of pounds over. please, prime minister, use that money in this country not give it to the eu. >> prime minister. >> my honorable friend.

the premise of his question was no legal obligation for us to pay anything to the european union. i have to say, i believe that is not the case. i believe there are legal obligations for this country in relation to the financial settlement with the european union and as i said earlier, i believe that as a country, we are a country that abides by our legal obligations. >> this deal is not in the national interest and the prime minister knows that. it leaves us less secure, less influential and more isolated, but could i ask the prime minister on the subject of no brexit at all, could she set out what scenario would lead to no brexit at all? as far as i can tell only two, one she calls a general election, which i assume she won't be doing, two she allows the people's vote. which is it going to be. >> the right honorable gentleman, he referred to what he just-- he described what he thinks the position is going to be for the united kingdom if we go ahead

with this deal. and he talks about us being more isolated. that will not be the case. the united kingdom, the united kingdom will be taking its continuing to play its role on the world stage in a whole variety of organizations that we'll be involved in and also in the way which we negotiate trade deals for the rest of the world and support and cooperate with parts of the rest of the world on matters like security and defense. there is no sense in which this united kingdom is going to be isolated when we leave the european union. >> thank you, mr. speaker. for many months this house was assured that it would have the full future framework before it when it was voted on the withdrawal agreement. i was enurge canned to hear the prime minister say that further details will emerge. that will be critical for this job of employment in my

constituency. can the prime minister, we will see that future framework. >> i thank my honorable friend because this gives me an opportunity to set out the process that will be followed. we will be now entering into further intense negotiations with the european union, but with the future frame work can be delivered to the european counsel as part of the overall package and that will then be published and available for members of this house to see and i'm conscious that it is important, while we can't agree legal text on the future relationship, because we cannot do that until we have left the european union, that we have sufficient details in that future frame work that members are able to have confidence in the future relationship with the european union when they come to vote on the meaningful vote. >> mr. speaker, the prime minister or her parliament career, i don't always agree with her, but i know her to be a woman of courage and i feel

sorry for her this morning let down by the disloyalty of so many of her colleagues and i also feel sorry for her because we have given her an impossible task. we know increasingly in this countries and in this house that there is no deal better than staying in the european union. i think it's time we did something to recognize and be courageous and take it back to the people. >> the right honorable gentleman will not be surprised that the answer i give him, despite the fact that we have known each other throughout my career in this house, will be no dinner than that i've given to other honorable and right honorable members of this house in relation taking the vote back to the people. it was a decision of this parliament 6-1 that the people should have that choice and they exercised their votes in numbers we haven't seen before. i think it's only right that this parliament, that this government delivers on that vote. >> the good doctor. >> can the prime minister

describe any surer way of frustrating the referendum result and ultimately remaining in the european union than to accept a hotel california brexit deal, which ensures that we can never truly leave the eu with all of its manipulative entangled and undemocratic practices? >> can i say to my honorable friend. we're leaving the european union on march 29th, 2019 and we have a future relationship with the british people's referendum and we will come agricultural policies and other policies i have referred to previously. we will be leaving on the 29th

of march, 2019. >> thank you, mr. speaker. the withdrawal agreement that the prime minister is sending to us today is not in the national interest and it's clear it's not going to make us better off. she may not be aware overnight poll that shows 63% of the british public are against this deal, with 64% favoring a people's vote, if the deal is rejected. it's clear from the contributions this morning, what is going to happen in this house. will she now listen to the millions of people across our country and give them a say what brexit will actually mean rather than on the false promises that the vote to leave was predicated upon? >> honorable lady, the documents actually were published yesterday evening, which pages of the withdrawal agreement and outline of the political declaration and the joint statement, but she once again, the assumption is that we should in some sense try to go back on the vote that the

british people took. i believe absolutely we should not and we should ensure that we do leave the european union. that was the decision taken by the british people and that's the decision we will deliver on. >> dr. phillip lee. >> when i resigned from the government in june, i called for the suspension of article 50 because i feared this likely parliamentary impasse. i know the prime minister is a thoroughly decent person who has public service running through her veins. with that in mind and with the responsibility of government, could the prime minister outline to me the legal legislative and political requirements of suspending article 50 or indeed, revoking-- >> see the rest of this debate from the british house of commons on our website, c-span.org. find it by typing brexit in the search bar. we'll leave it here to go live in the u.s. senate. senators today considering the nomination of