and sunday constitutional scholars talk about how the u.s. constitution defines impeachable offenses by the president. thanksgiving weekend on the c-span networks. a on thursday, they backed draft agreement. several members of her cabinet including the current secretary resigned over disagreement in the proposal. this is an hour and half. >> order. statement. the prime minister. ms. may: 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 for all that they have done. mr. speaker, yesterday we agreed on provisional terms of our exit from the european union set out and the draft withdrawal agreement. we also agree the broad terms of her future relationship and outline political declaration. juncker has written to the president of european council to recommend the decisive progress is been made in the negotiation. and a special european council will be called for sunday, 25 december. 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 than both of these. a more ambitious free trade agreement than the eu has with any other country. and we were told we were to be

treated like any other third country on security cooperation, but the outline political declaration set out a debt operation 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. 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 period that ensures businesses only have to plan for one set of changes. we have agreed protocol to ensure a border and a southern basin areas are covered by withdrawal agreements and with a great after financial settlement far lower than the figures many mentioned at the start of this

process. mr. speaker, since the start of this process, i've been committed to ensuring that our exit from the eu deals with the issue of the border between northern ireland 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 at the end of the period. i do not pretend this is been a comfortable process or either we or the eu are entirely happy with all of the arrangements that are 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 the british people voted for which does 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. norway for now, not our own as the house knows, the original proposal from the e.u. was not acceptable, as it would have meant creating a customs border down the irish sea and breaking up the integrity of our united kingdom. so last month i set out for the house, the four steps we needed to take. this is what we have now done, and it has seen the e.u. make a number of concessions toward our position. first, the e.u. proposal for a northern ireland-only customs solution has been dropped. and replaced by a new u.k.-wide temporary customs arrangement that protects the integrity of our precious union. second, we have created an option for a single time-limited extension of the implementation period as an alternative to bringing in the backstop. as i have said many times, i do not want to extend the implementation period, and i do not believe we will need to do

so. this is about an insurance policy. but if it happens at the end of 2020 that our future relationship is not quite ready, the u.k. will be able to make a choice between the u.k.-wide temporary customs arrangement or short extension of the implementation period. withdrawal agreement commits 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, the withdrawal agreement is explicit that it is temporary and that the article 50 legal base cannot provide for a permanent relationship. there is also a mechanism by which the backstop can be terminated. finally, we have ensured full continued access for northern ireland's businesses for the whole of the u.k. 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 the easy

ones. i know there are some who said i should simply rip up the u.k.'s commitment to a backstop but this would have been an entirely irresponsible course of action. it would have meant reneging on a promise made to the people of northern ireland during the referendum campaign and afterwards, but under no circumstances would brexit lead to a return to the borders of the past. and it would have made it impossible to deliver a withdrawal agreement. as prime minister of the 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, we are now able to move on to finalizing the details of an ambitious future partnership. the outlined political declaration we have agreed sets 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 end free movement once and for all. instead, we will have our own new skills-based immigration system based, not on the country people come from, but what they can contribute to the u.k. the declaration agrees the creation of a free trade area for goods with zero tariffs, no fees, charges, or quantitative restrictions across all goods sectors. no other major advanced economy has such an arrangement with the e.u., and at the same time we will also be free to strike new trade deals with other partners around the world. we've also reached common ground on a close relationship on services and investments, including financial services which go well beyond w.t.o. commitment. the declaration ensures we will be leaving the common agricultural policy and the common fisheries policy. so we will decide how best to sustain and support our farms and our environment.

as the u.k. will become an independent coastal state once again. we've also reached agreement on key elements of our future security partnership to keep our people safe. this includes swift and effective extradition arrangements, as well as arrangements for effective data exchange on passenger name records, d.n.a., fingerprints and vehicle registration data. and we've 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've never accepted that. i've been committed day and night to delivering on the result of the referendum. and ensuring the u.k. leaves the e.u. absolutely and on time. but i also said at the very start that withdrawing from e.u. membership after 40 years and establishing a wholly new

relationship that will endure for decades to come would be complex and require hard work. i know it's been a frustrating process that has forced us to confront some very difficult issues. but a good brexit, a brexit which is in the national interest, is possible. we have persevered and have made a decisive breakthrough. once a final deal is agreed, i will bring it to parliament and i will ask m.p.'s to consider the national interest and give it their backing. voting against the deal would take us all back to square one. it would mean more uncertainty, more division, and a failure to deliver on the decision of the british people we should leave the e.u. if we get behind the deal, we can bring our country back together and seize the opportunities that lie ahead. and, mr. speaker, the british people want us 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 u.k., doing more to help families with the cost of living, helping our n.h.s. 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. 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 -- >> hear, hear. >> that is the problem. prime minister may: 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, delivers a free trade area for goods with zero tariffs, leads the common agriculture policy and common fishery policy, delivers an independent foreign and defense policy while retaining the continued security cooperation

to keep our people safe. maintain shared commitments to high standards, honors the integrity of our united kingdom, and delivers the brexit the people voted for. i choose to deliver for the british people. i choose to do what is in our national interest and i commend this a statement for the house. >> hear, hear. >> 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 negotiations, the government has produced a botched deal that breaches the prime minister's own red line and does not meet our test. >> yeah. >> right. [cross talking]

>> the government, mr. speaker, is in chaos. their deal risks leaving the country in an indefinite halfway house without a real say. when even the last brexit secretary, who theoretically at least negotiated the deal, says, i cannot support the proposed deal. what faith does that give anyone else in this place or in this country? the government simply cannot put to parliament this half-baked deal that 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 an o.b.r. and updated economic

forecast. the withdrawal agreement is a leap in the dark. an ill-defined deal by a never-defined gauge. there is no mention of the prime minister's favored term, implementation period, anywhere in the 585 pages of this document. and no wonder. there is precious little new to implement spelt out in either the agreement or the political declaration. article three of the agreement states, transition can be extended to end by 31st of december, 20xx. [laughter] can the prime minister confirm that this permits extensions to be rolled on until 2099? can the prime minister confirm that if the u.k. government cannot agree a comprehensive future relationship by january, 2021, which few believe would be possible, and the last two years

gives us no confidence this government can, then those negotiations would have to be put on hold. because the focus would then inevitably shift from negotiations on the future relationship to the negotiations on an extension of the transition period. including further payments to the e.u. article 132 sets out this process fairly clearly. so can the prime minister firstly tell the house how confident she is that a deal can be done by the end of 2020? and also confirm that if a new trade agreement is not agreed by the 31st 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 is her position. on the backstop itself, should

it come into force, there's no time limit or end point and if either party requests a review, and if there is no agreement, it goes to independent arbitration. the backstop locks britain into a deal from which it cannot leave without an agreement from e.u. in the backstop, restrictions on state aid are hard-wired 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 northern ireland would be subject to the customs union, but not the rest of the u.k.? this is despite the fact that the current prime minister said this is something, and i quote, "no u.k. prime minister could ever agree to."

another of her red lines breached. in fact, the list of e.u. measures that continue to apply, "to the u.k. in respect of northern ireland," runs to 68 pages of the agreement. this effects v.a.t. declarations and rules of origin checks. and it's clear, the prime minister's red line regarding the jurisdiction of the european court of justice has also been torn up. by 2021, under the prime minister's plan, we will either be in a backstop or still in transition where we'll continue to contribute to the e.u. budget and follow the rules overseen by the e.c.j. it is utterly far-fetched for the prime minister to say this plan means we take control over our laws, money and borders. after two years of negotiation, all the government has really agreed is a vague seven-page outline of political declarations. which looks like a substantial

delusion of the prime minister's previously declared negotiating priorities. there is only the scantest mention of workers' rights, consumers' rights, or environmental protections. no determination to achieve frictionless trade or even trade as frictionless as possible. no ambition to negotiate new comprehensive customs union that would protect trade, jobs and industry, and so uncertainty continues for business and all those that work in those businesses. that risks decisions for investment being deferred even further, costing jobs and living standards, and many companies may decide the lack of certainty simply means they will brexit. no clear plan to get a strong deal with a single market to ensure continued access to european markets and services. merely a vague commitment 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. like-wise, 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 or the galileo project. and there is no clarity about any future immigration system between the u.k. and the e.u. on following the scandal, many e.u. 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 inform the house when that 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. >> here, here. >> people around the country will be feeling anxious 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. >> here, here. >> prime minister. prime minister may: thank you, mr. speaker. to pick up some of the points that the right honorable gentleman made. first of all, he comments on -- he said that no deal was not an option. but then said, complains that we weren't preparing for no deal. actually, we have been preparing for no deal. and we continue to prepare for no deal because i recognize that

obviously we have a third stage of negotiation with the european counsel and then that deal, when finalized with the european counsel, has to come back to this house. so we will continue those preparations. he says that the withdrawal agreement is ill-defined. 500 pages of detailed legal text on the withdrawal agreement is not an ill-defined withdrawal agreement. he complains that the withdrawal agreement does not refer to the implementation period, of course it does refer to the transition period which is the same point of time. he then talked about the whole question of the decision on the backstop and the implementation period as coming at the end of december, 2020. if he looks again at the documents that have been produced, he will see that actually the decision will be taken in june, 2020. as to whether it is likely that the future relationship will not

be put in place on the first of january, 2021, and the decision at that point will be for the u.k. to decide whether it wishes to extend the implementation period for a limited period, or whether it wishes to go into the backstop. he's wrong in saying we have been absolutely -- [laughter] he is wrong in saying that we will not dealt with the issue at the borders anded irish sea. we have dealt with that. it took some considerable time to persuade the european union to move from its proposal for a northern island-only custom territory to any u.k. wide customs territory, but we have achieved that. in relation to the question of workers' rights, there is reference to nonregression in relationship to workers' rights. he said the protocols that the outlined political declaration does not have references to what

we're proposing in terms of a free trade area for the future. in fact, that is explicitly what it does reference in the protocol. 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 honorable gentleman read because he said there wasn't references to extradition. there are indeed references to extradition. he said also there was nothing about europol where there is expressly a reference that we will be including in the future document, terms for the united kingdom's cooperation via europol and eurojust. and i say to the right honorable gentleman, there is indeed a choice before members of this house. it is a choice of whether or not we go ahead with a deal that does deliver on the vote, while protecting jobs, while

protecting our security, and while protecting our union. of course what the right honorable gentleman wants is for to us stay in the single market and stay in the customs union, which would not deliver on the vote of the referendum. we are delivering free movement coming out of the agriculture policy, out of the cfp, and taking control of our money, our borders and our laws. that is the right deal for britain. and it is the deal that we will be putting forward before this house. >> here, here. >> mr. speaker, it's always been a brexiteer illusion that the country can leave the treaties, the european union treaties, while 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 that fact that's an illusion. does my right honorable friend, the prime minister, agree, that

the biggest single economic benefit, in fact most of the main benefits that we've enjoyed from our membership over the last decades, flow from the completely open border between the whole of the united kingdom and the rest of the european union? and that upon that have 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 and the customs union, until we know what we're changing to? >> here, here. >> and until we are satisfied that any change will retain those benefits, and keep completely open from any delays in costs caused 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, as some of my colleagues seem prepared to recommend. >> here, here. >> prime minister. prime minister may: we have indeed heard from business a very clear message about the importance of frictionless borders. which is precisely why the proposal that the united kingdom has put forward to the european union is based on that concept of frictionless borders. and the free trade area that we have put forward is precisely in that frame. my right honorable learned friend talks about remaining in the single market in the customs union. i do not believe that is right for the future of the united kingdom because i do not believe that doing those things would deliver on the vote of the british people. i think the british people wanted -- there are various things that underpins the vote.

an end to free movement was crucial among those. also remaining in the customs union does not enable us to have an independent trade policy. i believe it's important that we do have an independent trade policy once we have left the european union. we're negotiating the basis of our future trading relationship, and it's based on the concept of a free trade area and precisely the point he makes about moving good seamlessly across the border. >> ian blackford. >> thank you, mr. speaker. can i thank the prime minister for her statement. mr. speaker, the prime minister 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 it. now, mr. speaker, to lose one brexit secretary is one thing. to lose two in the matter of months illuminates the chaotic nature of this tory government. the number 10 front door has become a revolving one.

you know, the prime minister talks about taking back control. she can't even control her own cabinet. >> here, here. >> as i said yesterday, the prime minister is desperate and is increasingly looking defeated. what is absolutely shocking is that scotland is not once mentioned in the document. not once, prime minister, not once -- have the unique characteristics of scotland's of settlement have been mentioned. >> order. the leader of the scottish national party must be heard. and heard with courtesy. and indeed -- >> very grateful for your observations. but i don't think they greatly add to the quality of our deliberations. everybody will be heard. mr. ian blackford.

>> thank you, mr. speaker. not once has scotland's unique characteristics been worthy of mention. and yet 100 mentions of northern and yet 100 mentions of northern ireland. mentions of gibraltar, of cyprus, of the isle of man. but no reference to scotland. utter contempt has once again been shown to the scottish government, its parliament and its people. mr. speaker, deals for northern ireland means scotland can have its own differential deals. if northern ireland can stay in the single market, why not scotland, prime minister? the scottish government have published compromised documents calling for justice. the scottish parliament has 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 been ignored when we know that a differential 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 it's a matter of fact. it's a matter of reality. show some respect for the devolved institutions. >> hear, hear, hear, hear. mr. blackburn: well, you can bay and you can shout and you can talk about it being dreadful. but why was the scottish government not consulted just as gibraltar was before the prime minister went to cabinet yesterday? mr. speaker, the price scotland would be forced to pay is far too high with lost jobs, household incomes slashed, and

our shares under threat. now is the time to get realistic and put sensible options back on the table such as remaining in the single market. mr. speaker, the only credible compromise for which the snp has consistently made the case for, this deal is dead in the water. it is now clear that there is not a majority for this deal or a no deal. the prime minister must go back to brussels and extend article 50, and tell brussels that we must remain in the single market and 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. >> [laughter] mr. blackburn: stop the clock and go back to brussels. the speaker: the prime minister. pm may: can i just pick up two

key points that the right honorable gentleman makes. first of all, he made a reference to scotland's nhs being under threat. in fact to scotland's nhs depends on the scottish government, the snp government, determining the money is no good -- he's no good in pointing his finger at me. we ensure that in the nhs settlement, it means more money comes to scotland, and scotland has chosen not to spend it all on their nhs. that's an snp decision. just to -- the speaker: order, order. i protected the right honorable gentleman quite properly a moment ago when he was being brayed at in an unseemly manner. having asked the question, let me say to members of the scottish national party, 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. the prime minister. pm may: thank you, i thank you,

mr. speaker. i was then going to pick up the points that he made in regulation to northern ireland. northern ireland is not staying in the single market. what has, what is within the document is that in order to ensure the frictionless trade across the border with northern ireland and ireland northern , ireland will be meeting those regulations specifically in the goods part of the key, but it is not staying as 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 border with a country that is continuing as a member of the european union. and that is why, why together with our commitments in the belfast agreement, that is why northern ireland is dealt with separately in the withdrawal agreement. and then finally, he complained, much of his statement was a complaint that scotland was not specifically mentioned in these documents.

scotland is not specifically mentioned. scotland is a part of the united kingdom. >> hear, hear. the speaker: mr. ian duncan smith. >> can iowa's say i have always wished well to my right honorable friend. and my question is in this light. i have deep, deep misgivings on reading much of this overnight. that there is a real issue with the way that we will be treated in -- 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 even the sovereign right when we want to leave the e.u. but we do not have the sovereign right to leave this arrangement. the speaker: prime minister. pm may: my right honorable friend, he says that 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. indeed, i share some of those concerns. these have not been easy decisions to take. it has been necessary, as i explained, and it would be necessary in any deal that we were striking for our future partnership with the european union, to agree with a withdrawal agreement, and it has been clear, and we wanted to commit to ensure we deliver no hard border between ireland and northern ireland. it has been clear that that withdrawal agreement 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. secondly, it will be a choice as to whether we were to go in that circumstance, where there was a temporary, an interim period needed before the future relationship came into play. we would be able to choose a preference between the backstop and the extension of the implementation period. there are pros and cons on both of those sides of the arguments 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. that is a mechanism that does, and he's right, it does require mutual consent. it is for both sides to agree that. it is, it is, and i won't make any bones about that.

but it does enable that backstop to be replaced in a number of circumstances. firstly, of course, crucially, if the future relationship supersedes it, it used to be the case -- it was the case originally that that was the only point at which it could be superseded. it is now the case that alternative arrangements could replace it. but i repeat, i repeat what i have always said, which is that 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 period. the speaker: mr. vincent cable. mr. cable: the prime minister rightfully asserts that there are two alternatives to her plan. no deal and no brexit. >> that is right. mr. cable the government is : investing considerably in contingency planning for no deal. what contingency planning is she doing for no brexit? including, for example, advising the commission that article 50

may have to be withdrawn, and she herself is preparing for the fact, however much she hates it, that the house may instruct her to have to carry out the people's vote. pm may: can i say to the right honorable gentleman, he asked me what plans we're making for no brexit. we are making no plans for no brexit because this government is going to deliver on the vote of the british people. the speaker: john redwood. mr. redwood: if we took the best part of 39 billion over the next couple of years and spent it on public services and tax cuts, wouldn't that be a wonderful boost to our economy and the public mood? and wouldn't that be a better way of spending the money than buying 21 months -- the speaker: 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 invite the right honorable gentleman to begin his question again and do deliver it in full. -- to deliver it in full. mr. john redwood.

mr. redwood mr. speaker, i was : saying, wouldn't it be a wonderful boost to our economy and our public services if we spend that money on ourselves rather than on 21 months of delay, massive business uncertainty, and something which was sour the political and public mood for the entire time period. the speaker: prime minister. pm may: i say to my right honorable friend, i said it at a 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 he's referred to is considerably less than the european union was originally proposing we would be required to pay as part of the financial settlement. but i remain firmly of the view that this is a country that should ensure that we continue to meet our legal obligations and we will do so. >> mr. speaker, i could today stand here and take the prime minister through the list of

promises and pledges that she made it to this house, and to us privately, about the future of northern ireland and the future relationship with the e.u. but i fear it 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 may not have our interests at heart and for northern ireland and our precious union, five of those who resigned today have all talked about the threat to the integrity of the union. and i congratulate them and praise them for what they have said and done and their strong actions. and 39 billion has just been said for nothing. the choice is now clear. we stand up for the united kingdom, the whole of the united kingdom, the integrity of the united kingdom, or we vote for a

vassel state with the breakup of the united kingdom. the speaker: prime minister. pm may: can i say -- can i say to -- i will respond to the to the right honorable , gentleman. and he is 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 refers to the commitments i made in terms of northern ireland and the future relationship. those commitments remain absolutely. we are looking to ensure that we have that frictionless trade across borders, that both will enable not only us to deliver on our commitment for northern ireland, but will also enable us to ensure that we have that fictionless trade between the united kingdom and the european union, and 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, that actually ensure that we are preserving the integrity of the united kingdom. there has been 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. there are and indeed in the circumstances as i've 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 that he's concerned that we have not considered northern ireland throughout this process, well, i'm grateful to him he has not said that. because i have remained committed to delivering on two things in northern ireland. both no hard border between northern ireland and ireland. sorry three things. , no hard border between

northern ireland and ireland. for us to be able to continue to maintain and respond to our obligations under the belfast agreement, and to ensure that we protect the integrity of the united kingdom. the speaker: anna super he. >> mr. speaker, nobody but nobody can doubt the prime minister's absolute commitment and dedication to doing her duty and trying to deliver on this referendum, but the harsh, cruel truth of it is, 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, or 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 for -- with the european union. on that basis would she at least today undertake not to rule out taking this back to the british people and having -- >> [grumblings] the speaker: prime minister. prime minister. pm may: i'm afraid on that particular issue i will disappoint my right honorable friend. i'm not going to change the position i have 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 be taking the option that she said of remaining in the european union, but we will indeed be leaving the european union, that will happen on the 29th of march, next year.

>> thank you very much. mr. speaker, the prime minister has once again told the house we will be leaving the customs 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 of the e.u. and the truth is also that the only way to protect jobs, investment and an open border in i -- 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? the speaker: prime minister. pm may: 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 is why we have put forward a proposal which is reflected in that outlined political declaration for a free trade area in goods. it is why we have also put

forward a proposal which would ensure the frictionless trade of goods across the border. the right honorable gentleman and i disagree. a customs union is not the only way to ensure that we have a good trading relationship with the european union. we have put forward a proposal that is reflected in the outline political declaration to do that, while also ensuring that we are able to take advantage of operating an independent trade policy. the speaker: sir william cash. mr. cash thank you, mr. speaker. : these 585 pages are a testament to broken promises, failed negotiations, and abject capitulation to the e.u. will my right will my right , honorable friend understand that they represent a list of failures on northern ireland, ecj issues, indefinite extension of time, customs, independence of trade and fisheries, and above all on our truly leaving the e.u. because they will

control our laws, and there being furthermore some serious breaches of ministerial responsibilities, the ministerial code and collective responsibility? the speaker: prime minister. pm may: can i say to my honorable friend that they, 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 the declaration which identifies the scope and structure of our future relationships. our future relationship is one that will not see the european union controlling our laws because there will be in these 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 jurisdictions in the united kingdom. and that is what we have negotiated in the outlined

initial declaration for our future relationship. but i recognize my honorable friend, as 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, 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 can put together a deal that both respects the votes of the british people and it does in a way which i have said [indiscernible] but 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 having good trading relationships elsewhere. that's in our economic interest, our national interest, and

that's what we'll deliver. the speaker: yvette cooper. mrs. cooper: the political declaration includes the passage -- passenger name records and the fingerprints database but makes no reference to the crucial criminal database we check 500 million times a year or to a replica european arrest warrant at a time when cross border crime and security threats are at their highest ever level. the prime minister knows that these measures save lives, stop criminals and stop terrorists, so how can she, of all people, say with her head and her heart that this public safety downgrade is in the national interest? the speaker: prime minister. pm may: can i say to the right honorable lady, first of all there is an agreement for an effective agreement to extradite

suspected and committed persons, effectively and expeditiously. that will be part of exactly the measure of the instruments used for that will be part of the negotiations that will take place. she is right, this too is important. there are two further areas of exchange of information that are important that i and the secretary believe are important. and those will be matters that we'll be taking forward with the european union in our further negotiations. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i greatly respect the prime minister's efforts in seeking to achieve an agreement. i don't believe this is a good deal for britain's long-term future, and she recognizes she's had to make unpalatable choices. there are clearly three choices ahead of our country in reality now, and they are crucial choices especially for young people who will 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? the speaker: prime minister. pm may: can i say to my right honorable friend and indeed obviously this is -- our right honorable friend raised this issue, house members on opposite benches. this house chose to ask the people of the united kingdom whether they wished to remain in the european union or leave the european union. there was an overwhelming vote in parliament to do that. >> [grumbling] pm may: there was an overwhelming vote in parliament to do that. it was about 6-1. so anybody who says it wasn't overwhelming is wrong. the british people, 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 has always been my view,

as i have seen in other european -- on other european issues, other countries, other member states of the european union, taking matters back to their populace having a referendum, , the voters come out against what the european union wanted and effectively a second vote to sort of 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 is quite clear we have been going for about an hour now, not a single honorable or right honorable member has supported the plans that the prime minister has set out, so it is quite clear that she cannot command the house of commons on these proposals. in fact i am almost apt to ask if members would put their hands up if they actually do support the prime minister on this set of proposals. and 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 is what they choose. the speaker: prime minister. pm may: i think -- sorry, i apologize. i did not quite hear the question. i think the right honorable gentleman said staying in the european union was an option, but no, no -- i said that there was a risk of no brexit. i said there was a risk of no brexit at all. but what the government has determined to do is deliver on the vote that the british people took to leave the european union. the speaker: mr. jacob rees mork. mr. mork: thank you, thank you, mr. speaker. my right honorable friend, and she is unquestionably honorable, said that we would leave the

customs union. annex two says otherwise. my right honorable friend said she would maintain the integrity of the united kingdom. a whole protocol says otherwise. my right honorable friend said that we would be out of the jurisdiction of the european court of justice. article 174 says otherwise. as all my right honorable friend says, what my right honorable friend does no longer match, so should i not write to my right honorable friend and sail west? the speaker: prime minister. pm may: can i say, can i say to my honorable friend -- can i say to my honorable friend, can i say to my honorable friend, we will indeed -- he referred to the articles that relate to the protocol in the withdrawal agreement. i have been absolutely clear that some difficult choices have had to be made in relation to

that protocol. those choices have been 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 have said before, and my honorable friend heard me say before, it is not only our intention but we will be working to ensure that that protocol does not need to be put into place. what what we are negotiating, , alongside that withdrawal agreement, is not something that will be as a temporary nature, but what will be a lasting future relationship with the european union, which will last for decades to come. and in the future relationship, we will no longer be a member of the customs union. we will no longer be a member of the single market. an end to free movement will have been delivered. the integrity of the united

kingdom will have been maintained. the jurisdiction of the european court of justice in the united kingdom will end, and we will come out of the common agricultural policy and the common fisheries policy. as i ask my honorable friend to consider the nation of the future relationships that we will be delivering with the european union which does indeed deliver on the commitments i made. the speaker: mr. jonathan edwards. mr. edwards with northern : ireland swimming in the deep end of the pool, can she confirm based on the british logic,ent's own [indiscernible] >> [laughter] say can i say to , the honorable gentleman, that of course we are conscious as we look at the proposals for the trading relationship between the united kingdom and european union, i am conscious of the significant trade that takes place between ireland and wales,

hasthe importance of this for the welsh, for the most port. -- the welsh port. and if you look at the future relationship, we have made a proposal for that frictionless trade which would indeed protect the business of the welsh port and ensure that we have, as part of that good trade relationship in the future. the speaker: sir peter bottomley. mr. bottomley can i put to my : honorable friend that the majority in the country, in this parliament and in this party, accept the results of the referendum, that we back her in trying to get the sovereignty she has argued for the prospects , of prosperity, security and a fruitful partnership across the channel of the north sea and across the world. and if we do not go forward with this, the possibility of crashing out and a possibility of a government led by leaders of the opposition, neither which is an alternative. the speaker: prime minister.

pm may: my most honorable friend, i believe as i think he does, that it is important to move forward not only in delivering on the vote, but ensuring we do so in a way that protects our prosperity, protects people's jobs, and livelihoods for the future. but more than that, there are significant opportunities for this country once we leave the european union to develop that writing future with those further trading relationships around the rest of the world, but also keeping a good trading relationship with our closest partners in the e.u. the speaker: angela eagle. mrs. eagle: thank you, mr. speaker. will the prime minister now recognize that she made a catastrophic error when she decided to kowtow to the fantasy extremist beliefs of those in her own party instead of bringing the country together, that their views are impossible to actually bring about, and

they are now openly plotting against her as she tries to do negotiation? is surely, she now needs to listen to the fact that there is no majority in this house for the botched deal she has brought back. think again and see whether in this house there can be a consensual way forward which remists out inxt the cold where they belong? the speaker: prime minister. pm may: i say to the honorable lady i have kowtowed to no one. the instruction i take, the instruction is the one given to every member of this house in the referendum in 2016. the speaker: mr. mark francois. mr. francois: it may surprise the house, but i agree with my grokster.friend from prime minister, the whole house

accepts that you have done your best. but the labour party have made plain today that they will vote against this deal. the snp will vote against it. the liberals will vote against it. the dup will vote against it. our key ally in this place will vote against it. over 80 tory backed -- when is 84, and it's going up by the hour, will vote against it. it is therefore mathematically impossible to get this deal through the house of commons. the stark reality, prime minister, is that it was dead on arrival at st. thomas before you stood up. so i plead with you, i plead with you to accept the political reality of the situation you now face.

the speaker: prime minister. pm may: can i say to the honorable gentleman, i respect he obviously holds very clear views of the issue with our membership in the european union and the relationship we should have with the european union thereafter. we will go forward with the final negotiations towards that european council meeting on the 25th of november. and when when a deal is brought , back, it will be for members of this house, not just to look at that details of the deal, but to consider to consider the vote , of the british people, to consider our duty to deliver on the vote of the british people. this is the deal that has been negotiated with the european union. we have to finalize it, and a vote will come when we have a meaningful vote. and it will be for the members of the house to determine how should they vote at that time, and to remember when they cast their vote the importance of ensuring that we deliver on the

vote of the british people. the speaker: ben bradshaw. mr. bradshaw: the prime minister will be aware that the main financial backer of brexit is now under criminal investigation by the national crime agency. there is serious doubt about the true source of the money he spent on the lead campaign. did the prime minister, when she was home secretary in 2016, decline a request from the security services for mr. banks to be investigated? the speaker: the prime minister. pm may: i would say to the right honorable gentleman, that we do not comment in this house on individual criminal investigation, on individual criminal investigations that take place. the speaker: nicky morgan. morgan: thank you, mr. speaker. there are many ironies in this process and one of them, as we heard, the colleagues on these benches are going to use the parliamentary vote -- in december and received a torrent

of abuse, allegations of treachery, betrayal, and the threat of the selection. but we have heard so many times, we are where we are. i want to pay tribute to the fact the prime minister did get in cabinet. and can she reassure us that regardless of how many resignations there are between now and in the vote, that the agreement will come to parliament, and parliament will have its say, and she is clear that voting for the agreement is in the national interest. pm may: can i say can i say to , my right honorable friend, i can give her the assurance that obviously we have the set of that european accounts finalizing the deal, but the deal when finalized will indeed be brought to parliament. as i suggested earlier it will , be for every member of the house to determine their vote in the national interest. >> the prime minister has carried out permission on this with no self -- small sense of duty, but it has been a failure and it has turned out to be a humiliation.

this was sold to the people as taking back control. but the promises of the right-wing nationalists who have fund it have been shown to to justice. instead we are being asked to sign off to control our economy with no say over them and give tens of billions for the privilege. is it not the case that far from taking back control, this is the biggest voluntary surrender of sovereignty in living memory? i asked her to think again. the speaker: prime minister. pm may: my answer to his question is no. if we look at the situation, he refers to the $39 billion, which is the financial settlement in the restaurant -- for the withdrawal agreement which is part of the overall package of the withdrawal agreement and the future relationship. and the future relationship we are negotiating with the european union is designed in the out lined political

declaration makes it clear, to deliver on the issues that went to the british people when they voted for brexit. and of course as i said repeatedly many times in the house, nothing is agreed until everything is agreed. the speaker: steve baker. mr. baker: this backstop is intolerable and i feel confident that in the unlikely event this reaches the house, it will be ferociously opposed. will my right honorable friend therefore accept this could be a choice by the government to have no deal imposed upon it in the last minute, and will she therefore trigger all of the implementation of no deal contingencies now? the speaker: prime minister. pm may: i say to my honorable friend, that as i indicated earlier i think in response to a previous question, we will be continuing the no deal preparations, because i am that -- i am conscious that we have certain stages to go in relation to this process. the european council brings this

matter back to the house. he has recognized that is not just a meaningful vote to legislation. they have to go through. as i said earlier recognizing , that we have the european council and that meaningful vote to take place in this house, we will be continuing our no deal preparations. >> mr. speaker, while it might be tempting to watch the much vaunted tory brexit festival, this is serious stuff. now the prime minister knows that her analysis means that every single one of her plans means people losing their jobs. the planhe look at which means us living the least number of jobs, the least damaging, and may, unlike her plan, with support across the house, that means leaving the customs union and a single market. the speaker: the prime minister. pm may: we will be leaving the customs union and the single market. the speaker: amber rusk.

mrs. rusk: whether we remain or leave, whether we sit on this side of the house or that, we know that millions of people voted for brexit because they are anxious about their futures, about their children, and about their families. away from the westminster bubble, we must remember to consider these dark communities when we consider the outcomes today, and we know that there is no deal that will be most damaging than this. can i ask the prime minister what the response is, what the response has been from the business council that she set up, the major employers who will protect those jobs? the speaker: prime minister. pm may: i will thank my white honorable -- right honorable mentioning people outside of this chamber, because they are the people we must consider when we are looking at decisions in relation to this deal when it comes forward. can i just say there have been quite a number of quotes that

have come from industry about that about the deal and about , the fact that, for example, it delivers a clear path ahead that desperately -- that business so desperately needs, that it brings with it some certainty that our small businesses have craved. businesses have been looking for a certainty that the deal would bring. and they have also been concerned that we focused on that free trade area and all of frictionless trading across borders which is what this government has done. >> can the prime minister guarantee to the house that at the end of march we will continue to have frictionless supply chains, and at the end of this process we will be in control of our borders? [indiscernible] the judicial powers we have surrendered, and we will [indiscernible] the speaker: prime minister. pm may: can i say to the right

honorable gentleman that the future relationships we are negotiating with the european union absolutely delivers on the point he made about no jurisdiction of the european court of justice, taking back control of our borders so free movement is ended. we also face the concept of the free trade area on the need for the frictionless trading of goods to ensure that the people whose jobs depend on this supply -- those supply chains do not see these jobs go. we are not only able to retain those jobs, but with the other trade agreements will be able to bring forward and we can create more jobs in this country. >> mr. speaker, may i congratulate the prime minister on her exceptional efforts to honor the result of the referendum and to achieve a deal with the european union under the most difficult and demanding circumstances. and will she elaborate on the scale of the future partnerships

agreed on security and defense? the speaker: prime minister. pm may: to my right honorable friend, there are two areas in relation to security. one of course is internal security on which i asked a number of questions on where we tend to maintain cooperation in a number of areas where we are closelyy working very with our european partners. the other is in external security and defense. we will have independent foreign policy. it will be for our decisions. but what we have negotiated is -- and is set out in the outline, is an ability for the united kingdom, where it make sense to do so, to work with our european partners on matters of security and defense. and on issues like the implication of sanctions where it makes sense for those to be europewide rather than simply the european union. for the u.k. to be a part of that. we will have our independent ability to deliver sanctions. we will cooperate with our partners in the european union. that is what retains our

independence but also ensures that we are able to act at all times in the best interests of the united kingdom and the best interest of maintaining security and defense. the speaker: caroline lucas. lucas: thank you, mr. speaker. the prime minister knows her deal is dead. she knows that no deal will be a disaster. we face the nhs in crisis. that was never the will of the people. they didn't vote for that. this isn't a parlor game, this is real people's real lives. those risks and only be addressed if we put aside politics. so i appeal to her again, why will she not give the people of this country a vote? a people's vote on when -- the speaker: prime minister. pm may: i could refer to the honorable lady, but let me repeat the answer i have given earlier that this parliament gave the people a vote. the people voted to leave, and we will deliver on the people's

vote. the speaker: sir edward lee. mr. lee: with respect to my honorable friend from somerset i , believe these issues are so complex that one should not deal with them on a personal basis. my question is this and will she help me in my loyalty, what if the brexit secretary is right? what if his resignation letter his 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 this vote in parliament, which is very likely? can she promise me that she will deliver brexit at the end of march? the speaker: prime minister. pm may: can i say can i say to , my honorable friend, first of all that we will be leaving the

european union on the 29th of march, 2019. that is, that is a set date, and i am determined that we will deliver on that. whatever happens whatever , happens in between. in relation to the question of whether or not, were we to be in the backstop, and as i said, the backstop is not an arrangement that i decide actually want to see being operated. it was no more than a temporary construct. there are various aspects to this. i will draw his attention to one or two of those. first of all it is not possible , under article 50, the legal basis under article 50 for which this agreement is set that sets permanent relations for the future, and that is explicitly referred to within the withdrawal agreement. that it does not establish a permanent relationship. that is inherent in the operation of the article 50 legal base. i would also say to my honorable friend that one of the things we

have got removed from this protocol is the idea that if we moved on to the future relationship, and the british government chose to change that future relationship, the backstop could be reinserted. it cannot be. once it is superseded, it cannot be revised. the speaker: sir wilson. mr. wilson: thank you, mr. speaker. can i congratulate the prime minister? she has proven yet again that you cannot square the wheel. can the prime minister therefore say, hand on heart, whether she believes what she has negotiated is better than the deal we have now. the speaker: prime minister. pm may: i firmly believe that this country's best days are ahead of us. we will get a good deal in the european union. we will get a good deal in the european union and take advantage of our independence outside of the european union with our trade deals around the rest of the world. the speaker: stephen crabb. my own constituency

: like the rest of the country is deeply divided today. does my honorable friend agree that there was going to come a difficult moment when the theory of a perfect brexit met the cold reality of hard choices and compromise? does she agree with me that this is absolutely not a moment to walk away from our responsibilities to govern and provide this country with leadership at a difficult time? pm may: can i say to my right honorable gentleman, i do agree with him. it is a complex negotiation. this is a complex negotiation. it does require difficult choices to be made. and to 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 choices pragmatically in the interest of the british people. the speaker: rachel reeves. mrs. reeves: thank you, mr. speaker. the prime minister insists that this deal is in the national interest.

so specifically on the economy, the agreement would ensure that we have no say in the rules in which govern how we play. it does not include services and offers only the illusion of future trade deals. given all this, does the treasury believe that we will grow more or less fast and create more or less jobs with the negotiated agreement or with our current relationship with the european union? the speaker: prime minister. pm may: she refers of course to the withdrawal agreement. what is important in terms of the relationships that will persist for decades between this country and the european union is the future partnerships we negotiate with the e.u. that is based, as we have said, it 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 have assured honorable members across this house before that when the meaningful vote is before this house members will have the

, appropriate analysis in order to inform them in their decision. the speaker: dr. sarah wallace. dr. wallace: it should be blindingly obvious to the entire country that the prime minister's deal cannot pass the house. what we will find unforgivable is that we are running out of road, and in 134 days, the -- we will be crashing out of the european union with no deal, and no transition with , catastrophic consequences for all the communities that we represent in this house. could i ask the prime minister to think again about whether at this stage we should go back to the people, present them with the option rather than us just stumble on regardless into something that will have such profound implications for all of our lives? the speaker: prime minister. pm may: the nature of the brexit of our future relationship will

-- with the european union will come before this house. members of this house will have various issues to consider when they take that vote. but i will say to my honorable friend as i have said to other honorable members of this house that i firmly believe that having given the choice as to whether we should leave the e.u. to the british people, it is right and proper and indeed our duty as a parliament and as the government to deliver on that vote. >> we now know that during the transition which may well have been president, that the u.k. will give up our say over a large part of the rules that govern our economy. if the backstop comes into play, we will not unilaterally be able to leave it. how is giving up our current say and influence for no say in influence -- and influence

taking back control? pm may: can i say to the honorable lady indeed what she'd described as a transition. -- a transition period back in march when the european council agreed to the concept of the transition period. the point of the transition period was moving towards a future relationship. the future relationship is one in which we will have the ability to determine our position. yes i'm a we put forward a puzzle in the white paper which has frictionless trade and a common rulebook, but alongside that common rulebook was a parliamentary lock on determining whether or not this country would accept any changes. the speaker: mr. peter bone. mr. brown: thank you, mr. speaker. the government is preparing to give 39 billion pounds to the e.u., and there is no legal obligation to do so. 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 our roads mended properly, i would have an urgent care center at the eyes brooke hospital, and i would have millions of pounds over. please prime minister, use that money in this country, not give it to the e.u. the speaker: prime minister. pm may: my honorable friend the , premise of his question was there 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 sector -- settlement with the european union. as i said earlier i believe that , as a country, we are a country that abides by our legal obligations. the speaker: tom brake. >> this deal is not any 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 scenarios would lead to no brexit at all? as far as i can tell, there are only two. one she called the general election, which i assume she won't be doing. or two, she calls a people's vote. which would be? the speaker: prime minister. pm may: the right honorable gentleman refers to -- he describes what he thinks the position is going to be for the united kingdom if we go ahead with this with this deal. ,he talks about us being more isolated. that will not be the case. the united kingdom, the united kingdom will be taking -- it is continuing to play its role on the world stage in a whole variety of the organizations it will be involved in but also a way in which we negotiate with the rest of the world. in the way in which we support cooperate with parts of the world on matters like security and defense. it makes no sense in which the united kingdom is going to be

isolated when we leave the european union. the speaker: antoinette. >> thank you, mr. speaker. for many months this house assured that it will have the future framework before it when it was voted on the withdrawal agreement. i was encouraged to hear the prime minister say that further detail will emerge. that will be critical to the jobs and employment in my constituency. can the prime minister say when we might see that future framework? pm may: can i -- i think my honorable friend because this gives me an opportunity to set out the process that will be followed. we will be entering into further intense negotiations with the european union such that a fold future framework can be delivered to the european council as part of the overall package. and that will then of course be published and available for members of this house to see. and i am conscious that it is important, while we can't agree legal text of the future

relationship because we cannot do that until we have left the union, that we have sufficient details in that future framework that members are able to have confidence in the future relationships with the european union when they come to vote on the meaningful vote. the speaker: mr. sherman. sherman: parliamentary code career. i don't always agree with the prime minister, 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. i feel sorry for her because we have actually given her an impossible task. we know increasingly in this country and in this house that there is no deal better than staying in the european union. i think it is time we do something to recognize and be courageous and take it back to the people. the speaker: prime minister. pm may: the right honorable gentleman will not be surprised that the answer i give him that despite the fact that we have known each other throughout my

career in this house will be no different than from what i have given to other honorable members of this house in relation to taking it back to the people. it was a decision of this parliament by 6-1 that the people should have that choice. the people exercise their votes. i think it is only right and proper that this parliament, this government delivers on that vote. the speaker: the good dr., dr. julian lewis. dr. lewis can the prime minister : describe any surer way or frustrating the referendum result and ultimately remaining in the european union than to california brexit deal which ensures that we can never truly leave the you with all of its manipulative entangling and undemocratic practices? pm may: can i say to my honorable friend we are leaving the european union on the 29th of march, 2019.

we are negotiating a future relationship with the european union that would indeed deliver on the vote of the british people that took place in the referendum. and we will do so because we will bring an end to free movement, an end to the jurisdiction of the justice court of the european union, agriculture policy, fisheries policy, these i have referred to previously. we will be leaving on the 29th of march, 2019. the speaker: luciana burger. >> the withdrawal agreement that this prime minister is talking about today is not the national interest. it is very clear it is not going to make us better off. she has not been aware there was an overnight poll that shows 63% of the british public are against this deal with 64% favoring a people's vote. it is clear from the contributions this morning it is what will happen in this house. will she now listen to the millions of people across our country and give them a say on what brexit will actually mean?

rather than on the false promises the vote was limited on? pm may: can i say to the right honorable lady that the documents actually were published yesterday evening with 500 pages of declaration and the outlined 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 the british people took. i believe absolutely that we should not. we should ensure that we leave the european union. that was the decision taken by the british people, and that decision we will deliver on. the speaker: dr. philip lee. dr. lee: when i resigned from the government in june, i called for the suspension of article 50 likely i feared this 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 an eye on the importance of

responsibility of government, could the prime minister outline to me the legal, the legislative, and the political requirements of suspending article 50 or indeed revoking it? pm may: can i say, as i think my honorable friend will know, there is of course the case -- there has been the case before the courts on the issue of the extension of article 50. but this government's position is clear, we will not extend article 50. the speaker: joanna cherry. jerry: thank you, prime minister. prime minister, article 14, 89, 174 of this agreement mean that the jurisdiction of the european court of justice will continue to reign supreme across the u.k. in a number of respects four years after the transition in some respects, for eight years in other respects, and in the

case of northern ireland, indefinitely. can she tell us in what respects her redline line on the courts of justice survives this agreement? honorablesay to the lady yes, i was very clear when we brought back the agreement in december in the joint report in relation to this example that there would continue to be an ability for the interpretation of the european court of justice in relation to european union law on those rights to be considered for a period of time the on the transition period. then that will fade. in relation to northern ireland, it is not the case that northern ireland will be indefinitely under the jurisdiction of the european court of justice. the future relationship that we are negotiating with the european union will ensure the united kingdom will be removed from the jurisdiction from the european court of justice. if she looks at the government arrangement that have been put in, proposed to be put in place,

it is we are very clear that the court of one party cannot determine matters in relation to the court -- in relation to another party. the speaker: sir christopher choke. >> my right honorable friend has repeated today nothing is agreed until everything is agreed. so can my friend explain why there is nothing in the withdrawal agreement which makes the withdrawal agreements legal -- legally contingent upon the implementation of an agreement of a legal relationship for the pm may: there are indeed clauses that link that withdrawal agreement to the future relationship and to ensuring in a number of places in relation to this matter to ensure that is in place. as i said earlier, we are still going to be negotiating further deta