Watch Parliament debate Brexit in historic session

we will not stand for it I warn members who marched through the lobbies with the government this afternoon that selling Scotland out by backing this deal will be the final nail in the coffin for the Union mr. speaker while the UK dragged Scotland out of the EU against her will well this Tory government burned leads our devolution settlement and destroys our rights in Scotland the SNP look entirely ATO record we are ambitious for our nation and not this Prime Minister not the leader of the Opposition not any leader of the Liberal Democrats not anyone will stand in her way the Scottish people are sovereign and they should have the choice to determine their own future mr. speaker this year Scotland is marking the 20th anniversary of the evolution the establishment of our Scottish Parliament the first speech that was made in the news punish Parliament and me 1999 was by my good friend when it for doing at the time she made that speech she was also of course the mother of the European Parliament having served there since 1979 when he expressed the hope that the Scottish Parliament would try to follow the more consensual style of the European Parliament's at other European Parliament's rather than the more confrontational approach that we witnessed again here today in Westminster and interactions know our actions today we are trying to stay true to that advice well the remains uncertainty over whether this proposed deal will pass what is absolutely clear is it would take us out of the European Union out of the single market out of the customs union against the overwhelming Democratic world of the people of Scotland mr. speaker Scotland did not vote for brexit in any form and unlike others the and be will not vote for Brett's it in any form Scotland has been shafted sideline silenced ignored by the shooby government and it cannot be ignored today members I are jus you not stand by and allow this Prime Minister to drag us into an economic abyss because I warn the house it is cleaner than ever that the best future for Scotland is one as an equal independent European nation that is a choice that the SNP is determined ensure is given to the people of Scotland and those reports against Scotland's interest this afternoon will be aware you're ending the Union Scotland is not for leaving Europe we will become an independent nation my message to Europe is leave a light on for Scotland five minute or five minute limit embankments speeches will have to apply with immediate effect though I don't anticipate that that limit will last very long mrs. Theresa May Thank You mr. speaker mr. speaker when I arrived at the House of Commons this morning I saw the message good day for May I thought that perhaps consensus had come across the whole of the house and that they were already been decided that this deal would be supported by the house tonight unfortunately my view on that was premature and I think only premature but happily for England of course it was a reference to Johnny Mae having scored in our victory against Australia I hope the whole house will forgive me if I say that standing here I have a distinct sense of deja vu but today's vote is an important well I intend to rebel against all of those who don't want to vote to deliver brexit mr. speaker today's vote is important the eyes of the country no actually the eyes of the wider world are upon us today and every member in this house has a responsibility in the decision that they will take to determine or whether or not they are going to put the national interest first and not just an ideological or a single issue or a party political interest but the full wider interests of our constituents and as we look at this as we look at this issue it is something the decision we take tonight will determine not just the future of our country or the future lives of our constituents but I believe the very future of our politics because we have today to take a key decision and it's simple do we want to deliver brexit do we want to deliver on the result of the referendum in 2016 well we know we know the views of the Scottish Nationalist Party they they reject results of referendum they [Applause] when this House voted overwhelmingly to give the choice of our membership of the EU to the British people did we really mean it when we voted to trigger article 50 did we really mean it when the two main parties represented in this house stood on manifestos in the 2017 general election to deliver brexit did we really mean I think there can only be one answer to that and that is yes we did mean it yes we keep faith with the British people yes we want to deliver brexit because if know there's a if if the right honourable lady we'll just wait for a minute because if this Parliament did not mean it then it is guilty of the most egregious kontrick on the British they're happy many views across this house I want to say simply to some of the groups involved there are those some of whom believe passionately and have believed for some time others who have come to this more lately that there should be a second referendum I say simply this you cannot have a certain referendum simply because some people don't agree with the result of the first I don't I don't I don't like no there are many people who want to speak so I'm going to carry on I've taken many interventions and questions across it I don't like referenda but I think that if you have one you should abide by the result that people have given you then there is the Labour Party front bench and I've heard much from the Labour Party front bench over the last three years about the importance of protecting jobs of protecting manufacturing of protecting people's livelihoods if they really meant that they would have voted for the deal earlier now is their chance to show whether they really care about people by voting for this deal tonight in this house this afternoon I hope mr. speaker in this House of Commons and then I say to all of those across this house who say they do not want No Deal I've said it before I've said it many times I hope this is the last time I have to say it if you don't want No Deal you have to vote for a deal crying out for certainty people want certainty in their lives investors want to be able to invest and want the uncertainty to be got rid of they want to know that this country is moving forward if you want to deliver back sit if you want to keep faith with the British people if you want this country to move forward then vote for the deal today Thank You mr. Peter Kyle [Applause] you can and I say I say with all respect and humility to the former Prime Minister that there will be a lot of people watching this now and listening to her words that will feel very strongly that the only kontrick is a prime minister who makes a solemn promise to the public that there would be under no circumstances a border down the Irish Sea and then seeing the same person traipsing through the lobbies to vote precisely for it so I would expect a little bit more humility from her missus all of us who are very participant in the referendum debate noticed one thing the prospectus for Briggs it was a very poorly defined prospectus it was very difficult to gauge precisely what it would mean for our country but when the Prime Minister signed the article 50 treaty she had the legal right to define breaks it she came back with this deal over five hundred pages of definition of brexit this deal defined it and for almost a year the Prime Minister said and the government said that this deal respected the will of the people and now we have a separate deal that's been brought back by a separate government and this government is saying that this fundamentally different deal represents the will of the people it is a different deal with different customs arrangements different regulatory systems and a different border for the United Kingdom and they say this represents the will of the people I make this simple point both deals can't represent the will of the people if you want to know what people voted for if you want to know what the will of the people is you can ask them not ask them based on promises ask them based on facts because we have the facts now the compromise that the honourable gentleman for Sedgefield and i have been working on is a compromise because we could be the remain as who open the door to briggs it it is about fundamentally breaking the gridlock here in Parliament I'll crack open and it's based around a deal I'll give away I've been listening to the Honorable member with interest and would he agree with me that whilst the referendum settled the question of leaving what it didn't settle was where we're going and that is why this house has been debating over the last three and a half years different ways of leaving the EU some people believe in the may deal some people wonder may deal miners backstop some people want to Northern Ireland backstop some people want the customs union some people want no a deal from p1 of man no deal does he agree with me but that is why whatever deal that the government is putting before us should actually be given to the people for a final say I'm extremely grateful for a thoughtful intervention and of course I agree with him because I speak as somebody who has voted for three separate versions of bread's it I haven't opposed most members of the ERG were voted for brexit so the key question is how do we break the gridlock how do we get through this impasse the idea of a referendum based on a deal is a confirmatory referendum we put the prospect of prospectus back to the people and say is this good enough for you they're exactly the same way that we did in Northern Ireland with the good a good eye good friday peace agreement i will give way Thank You honorable gentleman for giving way and as he knows back in February 2016 before the referendum masa gesture was put to the then prime minister who stood at that despatch box and said that the proposal the very idea was absolutely ridiculous nobody in this house disputed that then where was he in the house and I was working constructively with our members across the house and I voted for three separate versions of Briggs it I have done my bit to try and get across the line in this but we've got to the point now where so many different people simply because the prospectus for brexit wasn't defined at the start of the process it was only defined at the end of the process that so many people in this house have a different version of brings it that we are irreconcilably divided therefore we have proposed a compromise whereby we will allow the deal to pass through Parliament in return for inviting the public in to say in a definitive final say whether they will allow this deal to pass the public can decide is this deal good enough for them for their family for their community their jobs and our country if it is then we can leave directly on those terms without any need to return to this place if it's not we can remain with a deal we have two propositions bound in international treaty and law that are implementable straight away we grained growing support for this across the house when we pushed it last time people repeatedly said to us that if the Prime Minister's other times deal is defeated they would want to come and consider this but they wouldn't want to consider it before any defeat well the problem was that we didn't get the opportunity to press for a vote straight afterwards but now we do because the government is pushing two motions tonight one on their deal one on No Deal we will have an opportunity to vote after the house is spoken on the main deal so to all people who want to support the deal I say this focus on the deal support the deal but except one thing if the deal does not succeed in the first vote tonight we have to make a choice and there is a choice on the table that keeps the deal alive that keeps the deal intact it is the only way in those circumstances that the deal can proceed forward and in those circumstances I hope that people from across the house will decide that the country needs resolution and there is an option that remains standing that will break the gridlock that will get Briggs it out of Westminster back into our communities for one definitive final say and we can bring this nightmare to an end [Music] Mr Speaker I hope I would never be driven in these long debates on brexit so finally deciding what my opinion is on the choice between No Deal and a bad deal and I regret to say that when my right honourable friend the previous prime minister put forward the proposition for I had considerable doubts about her belief that no deal is better than a bad deal those doubts have increased because what we have before is now is undoubtedly a bad deal I think it's a very bad deal I think it's wholly inferior to the deal that was negotiated by my right honourable friend the former prime minister for which I too voted three times like the Honourable member from Brighton that I we cannot be accused of taking part in the debate seeking to block brexit and repudiate the wishes of the public and all the rubbish wished more fanatic brexit ears and their followers frequently hey letters but now the choice is very real it is a very bad deal for reasons which I won't dilate on others have I I actually have considerably sympathy with the members from Northern Ireland the independent universe to whom I almost always agree with also the Democratic Unionist this is a most controller constitutional position they're being put in as members of the United Kingdom and I would very much rather that we didn't have this situation of a border down the Irish Sea because there's absolutely no doubt that's quite a clear customs and regulatory border being envisaged down the Irish Sea it has to be said that the effect is to save the all Irish economy from the near calamity that the total No Deal would have resulted in I have no idea how anybody would have operated a No Deal situation across the border and I thought these weird propositions of a customs border somewhere in Northern Ireland but not on the border had little or no chance of working that although the Irish at least have the economic consolation that they will say long through the transition period as they are now I'm extremely worried the purpose of going to negotiate this convoluted arrangement over Ireland was so that the economy of Britain could be taken out of the customs union and the single market straight away and and if that holds after the transition period I think that will have the most damaging effects on our economic future for all the reasons that other people have given in the earlier and lengthy speeches we've had now therefore it's all to be played for in this transition period I actually do not believe that a good free-trade agreement a good agreement on security fighting international crime agreements on the licensing of medicines the possible arrangements from the European Medicines Agency all things spelled out are likely to be achieved by the end of next year the candidate in which a lot of brexit chairs like to hold up as a model took about nine years before that was put in place so I do wish that we activ prepare to contemplate a more realistic timescale but meanwhile I think the votes today we and the practice the next week or two have got to get us through the the necessary process to put in place a withdrawal agreement so we have a transition period in which we can have the full negotiations about the ultimate destination and all my votes in this house personally have been to ensure the calamity of leaving with no deal on the 31st of October and whenever was never allowed for happening for that reason I think we should support this deal I cannot understand the government's resistance saying that that's of course we should legislate before we abandon the protection of the been act and decide we don't need a extension the government says only you can take that for granted the detail getting the votes we all know that none of us are sure whether there's a majority for this government at all for the present deals today if they can keep it through the whole of the legislation I sure wait to see that they can more grateful than ever before to the right honorable and learning gentlemen the five-minute limit still applies but the Honourable general is the last member to benefit from it Sammy Wilson as a party we have been supportive all throughout this process of delivering on the referendum result of the release people we have defied and opposed the procedure of securely which is gone in this place the political machinations which have gone on this place to try and undermine that the irony is that today which should be a day of rejoicing for us when the Prime Minister was back with a daily we find that Northern Ireland and Northern Ireland alone will be left with in the clutches of the European Union by being de facto members of the customs union and being tied to European regulations now the government has put forward two defenses first position the first is that there wasn't there will be no border down the Irish Sea there is no border down arec but let's look at the facts of this as a result of the customs arrangements first of all every good which has exported from gb to Northern Ireland will be subject to a customs declaration movements will be subject to checks unless it can be proved that the goods are not going outside Northern Ireland Judy will be paid only when you've proved that there aren't going well that you repaid back and on top of that there'll be all of the regulations of the European Union imposed in Northern Ireland now if anybody tells me that that does not represent an economic customs legal border hard border between Northern Ireland and the rest United Kingdom I don't know what a hard border looks like that furthermore when it came turning to bits in this heist I have heard it said that if there were to be an extra camera please from the border between Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic or one additional piece of paper had to be signed that would represent a brick and the Good Friday Agreement because it would represent a hard border between Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic so on one hand you can have all of these checks between Northern Ireland and GP and it doesn't count as a hard border but one camera on the border between Northern Ireland and Irish Republic dogs tracked is a hard border and I think that that shows the high false the argument has been put forward by the government that they have not accepted a hard border between Northern Ireland and what's the implication of that it means that we are first of all cut off from the country to which we belong and secondly our economic relationships with the biggest market that we have are damaged the arts the second argument put forward by the Minister today is this that well you could get out of it you can you can vote against it and that will not will get I'll give away the moment that we just released an argument let me just finish this argument you can vote against it but of course there's a mechanism a very in Northern Ireland and for dealing with sensitive issues its enshrined in an internationally binding agreement and that mechanism because of the sensitive nature of politics in northern says that any controversial issue has to be decided by a cross community vote that part of the Belfast agreement which is so sacrosanct in this face and to those who negotiated has died being poor night of the Belfast agreement and I'll give way a very grateful turnable gentleman and he's making his own powerful monument which we have heard could I ask him in a limited time available that he turns his attention and addresses the amendment made by my rural friend Rada my friend for Dorset West because if he's concerned a hard border mr. speaker he must recognize that the door may be opening if that passes today for a hard border and no deal brexit to emerge well first of all the hard border is there and you know I've made the argument and I defy anybody to tell me that if you've got to fill in a customs declaration you've got to have lorries and vans searched at the ports coming into the northern you've got to pay taxes on goods which come from GP that that's not a hard border already and we will don't let me but let me come to this issue of consent because it's important because the Minister dismisses unionists fears by saying you can vote your way out of it well of course the mechanism for voting our way out of it is Laird dined by by the an International Trading why is that not going to be adhered to because the government and the EU and the Irish government knows that that would be an effective way of Northern Ireland doing the very thing that the Minister has said we'd be able to do remove that and you remove the ability of Northern Ireland to take itself out of this arrangement and of course we only get the chance after four years we're food into without any consent at all agree with me that in Northern Ireland at the moment and for the last a thousand days where we have had no government there has been a majority not just a simple majority a significant majority of parties and people who want to get back to work we are being held and blackmailed by a minority party Shenfield and yet this government has defended that minority bado for over a thousand days meaning there's no government in Northern Ireland well of course that's the irony that we that we have to avoid having an assembly because the voting mechanism of the Belfast agreement must be adhered to but when it comes to getting out of this arrangement which has severe consequences for Northern Ireland the mechanism of the Belfast agreement doesn't have to be adhered to I again either we don't help we we we avoid a hard border or we have a hard border either we adhere to the Belfast agreement we don't adhere to the Belfast agreement and that's an this agreement that the go with the sand turns all of those things on their head and that's the reason why we will oppose it and I'm sure honourable members across the the hice who have defended their constituency interests whether it's a fishing industry in Scotland or in Cornwall whether it's the the industrial worker the rates of workers and they're in their own constituencies they will understand why we are will not give in to this agreement which we believe does damage to our part of the United Kingdom and which will lead to the focus of attention away from gobbler away from London towards Dublin because don't forget we will be tightened we will be tight internal arrangement silent arrangement where the the laws for Northland are women and Brussels the British government have no input the storm account will have no input so where's the focus of attention come then fur industry and lobby groups and politicians in Northern Ireland Dublin and so we move towards unity and then down about we were asked what we would do in relation to the amendment all I can say is this that it we would be filling in our due date if we do not use every strategy which is available to try and get guarantees changes and alterations which will welter which will safeguard the interests of the United Kingdom the owners of our constituents and the interests that we have represent a three-minute limit now applies Chris Grayling speaker I was going to be brief anyway I campaign delete mr. speaker but at every stage of the campaign I argue that we should leave on good terms with our friends and neighbors that we should leave with a deal I supported the previous Prime Minister in what she sought to achieve I pay tribute to this Prime Minister for what he has done in bringing forward a deal but after a year of turbulence in this place when we have not really come near to finding anything a majority in this house can agree on what is absolutely clear today is that we are much closer than we have been before to something which this Parliament is willing to give its support to I pay tribute to the Prime Minister for achieving that and I strongly urge this house to unite behind this agreement but I specifically mr. speaker want to talk about the amendment being brought by the original member for West Dorset and I want everyone all sides of the house to think about this I know my rights are open well he has his reasons for bringing this amendment forward but the consequence of it is that this house at a moment where the nation is watching us to see what decision we will take about the dealers has been brought back from Brussels this house today may decline to form an opinion that is the consequence of passing the amendment that we will today not decide whether we support this deal or not and I put it to you mr. speaker indeed but the truth is that the public of saying to us is enough is enough get on get out so we can get ahead it's as simple as that well mr. speaker actually agree with my rattle war friend and that to my mind it's the crux of the issue around this amendment today are we really going to say to the public today we're not today going to make our minds up we're going to yet again defer the decision and every member will have to go back to their constituents and explain why today in a moment that is their the first Saturday sitting since 1982 we were not able to take a decision about whether we support the principle of this deal or not I think that would be deeply damaging to our democracy I think it will be deeply damaging to reputation of this house and of every individual in this Parliament and Mr Speaker I strongly urge everyone here whatever their views whether they are for this deal whether they're against this deal let us not put ourselves in their position the day where we're simply not taking a decision and saying to the public do you know what we'll put it off to another day I do not think Mr Speaker we can afford to do that I urge everyone in this house not to allow that situation to happen miss Kendall mr. speaker the decision we make today will shape the future of our country for years to come and in making that decision three issues weigh most heavily on my mind the first is the potential risks this deal poses to the future of the Union of the United Kingdom we have heard many times already that the deal explicitly separates Northern Ireland from the rest of the UK with a border down the Irish Sea and with Norman Northern Ireland remaining part of the --use trading system something the Prime Minister promised he would never do and these proposals I fear have a knock-on implications for Scotland's future relationship in the UK too I fear that the deal is an open goal to the SNP and their bid for independence we've already heard the argument that Northern Ireland voted to remain they're still part of the EU with frictionless trade why shouldn't Scotland have that tooth Mr Speaker I have always believed in the importance of unions that we are stronger and have more power and control when we work together I don't expect all honourable members opposite to share that most fundamental of Labor beliefs but as members of the conservative and unionist party I find it very hard to believe they'd vote for a deal that could put the future of our union at risk the deal also has potentially profound consequences for the future shape of our economy and public services paving the way for the government to take England Scotland and Wales out of the single market and customs union the hardest of all hard breakfast short of No Deal with all the risks that bring some manufacturing and services and whatever the primary - claims there are no legal guarantees for workers and consumers rights and environmental standards they can deny it till they're blue in the face but we remember it was precisely in order to cut those rights and standards that brexit is argued for years that we should leave the EU so they cannot convince us otherwise now to be honest I wish honourable members opposite would just be honest and say we believe the future of the country is a low tax small state deregulated country they've got a perfect right to think that but they should have the guts to put that vision of Britain finally mr. speaker on the implications for our democracy I know colleagues on both sides of the house understand the risks this deal poses to the Union and to our economy economy but they believe the risks to our democracy of not voting for this deal are even worse but the truth is this deal is not what people were promised during the referendum neither will it get brexit done far from it we will have years more negotiations with another cliff edge at the end of the transition I don't doubt that many people will be angry if this deal is voted down tonight but we cannot put that back we must put that back to the British people so they can decide is this the future for the country that they want - Thank You mr. speaker I share the view of my rifle and learn it Fred the member for Russian if but the deal that's being presented to us has many flaws one of the principal flaws is as a unionist I think it does threaten the Union of the United Kingdom very directive but I am bound to have to also accept that I think brexit generally threatens the Union of the United Kingdom very directly and I've never really seen an easy way of trying to resolve that and deliver brexit at the same time secondly although the deal is a matter on which I should congratulate my friend the Prime Minister he negotiated it he was unhappy with the earlier deal and he now says he's satisfied with it I remain of the view that if one looks at its detail in terms of the likely negotiating process that will have to take place next year I am left in very serious doubt that will in fact be possible to achieve a free trade agreement and that therefore this house will be confronted in 12 months time with very similar challenges to the ones that we face at present and with deep economic consequences if we can't find a way through them so I'm afraid I am NOT enthusiastic about the deal was listening to my right honourable friend the member for Maidenhead who's been very consistent in her view on the issue of brexit namely that for us as a house or MPs to both offer a referendum and then tried to thwart it by our own actions or reject it is a colle trick and I don't disagree with her about that although we have this disagreement and if I don't believe that it is in any way a con trick when one finds oneself ending up with something so utterly different from what was being offered I don't see anything wrong in going back and asking the electorate whether that is what they really want when I remain of the view that that possibility exists and if it were to be a majority view of the house that it should be done I would support it and seek to have that carried out because I think the consequences are so momentous now I'd also like to make clear to the Prime Minister but if that were to fail I would not seek to oppose leaving on these terms well to make that quite clear we've got to resolve this but that then brings me to the amendment of my right honourable friend the member for West Dorset it is frankly extraordinary that a government that says it wants to follow a sensible process then seeks to railroad that process in a way that makes it likely that proper debate will not take place and to that I am profoundly i profoundly object and for that reason I would support that amendment and anybody in this house who wants an orderly form of brexit should do so as well Mr Speaker I will be voting for the amendment of the right honourable member for West Dorset because it is an insurance policy against no deal my accident or by design what is very clear from the debate so far is this that the deal the promises brought back will give us less good access to our biggest nearest and most important market than we enjoy today and less good access to the deal negotiated by the former prime minister would have given and I cannot understand why anyone should regard that as something to be celebrated cheered or recommended it is no wonder the government does not want to do an economic assessment because it would show what the government's last economic assessment shows and I thought it's very striking as my right or my friend in his typically forensic and eloquent way told the house what it would mean practice to watch the euphoria that was evident on the benches opposite earlier give way to cold realization of what it will mean for the businesses and industries that we represent in our constituencies and I simply ask the question mr. speaker why would we want to undermine our future economy investment opportunity and potential in this way the second point I want to make is about consent because the Prime Minister was right in asking us how are we going to heal the rift that brexit has created if this deal is defeated today it will be the fourth time in which the house has been unable to agree a way forward and I am the first to admit that we cannot carry on like this we need to find a way forward and that is why a way of doing so has been offered in a very prescient intervention a year ago by my own to the members for home and such field with their compromise proposal and it is a compromise because there is in politics a division between those who advocate if we can't get a deal we leave with no deal and the other hand those who say let's just cancel the result of the referendum pretend it never happened now I do not subscribe to either of those views the compromise is to say there is a way in which we can get this done and achieve a decisions and that is by asking the British people and at the heart of that question is this do the British people have the right to change their minds now I fear that some people who reject a referendum would cry no they don't we had the one vote and that's it I disagree with that view because it is fundamental to our democracy that when the facts change events to change or time passes we should have the opportunity to change our minds if we wish I do not know what the answer to that question is the only people who know of the British people and that is why I will vote for my honorable friends amendment today because I think we should ask the people what they now want sodium cash I say very simply and get it out of the way straight away having given a great deal of consideration to all the issues that have been discussed over the last few weeks and having had the opportunity to discuss with ministers and in number 10 in various other places and in our groups and one thing in an hour that I have come to the conclusion that we must support this deal I will I go further and say that one of the reasons why I believe it is so important and I say this with great concern with respect to the DUP because I know that there are elements about this deal which are which do fall short and I'm gonna say something else too and that is that with regard to article 4 I still regard that as a serious problem and I'm glad that the prime minister has responded as he did today with a personal assurance that he will ensure in the bill when it comes that parliamentary sovereignty will be recognized notwithstanding I used the word notwithstanding the provisions that otherwise apply on that withdrawal agreement in article 4 and furthermore that he will also give us a guarantee that we're vital interests of this country are affected the European scrutiny committee will continue to have the opportunity to make sure that the house has the opportunity to consider and vote on questions which so arise I wrote in large on that now because that hasn't been entirely finalized the bill has not been published but I do say that there are signs of very great progress in that regard because that is about the principle of sovereignty and the principle of consent if the Select Committee procedures are followed along the lines that I am proposing actually I also believe that Northern Iowa benefit from that because they themselves will be able to come into the committee proceedings and give evidence with regards to the manner in which this is operating for them and then the matter could then if all goes well in terms of the bill itself have the obviously they will have the opportunity to have a vote on that on the floor of the house now I am simply making that quite clear now because I believe in the present circumstances this is is a very very historic moment well it is a moment which we have to seize so let us get out by the 31st of October no second referendum no revocation of article 15 get brexit are next have a general election and next sort this out once and for all now some of govern because I want to say some words about the nature of the deal before us and mr. speaker this is all a question of drugs whether or not we should support this deal depends on trust for the people of Northern Ireland we have heard that they cannot trust this deal from their represent their representatives today this could take us backwards not forwards in Northern Ireland mr. speaker and we are learning about the conservative and unionist party that before long they will be the party of only England they are putting our union at risk for the people of the GB Northern Ireland border whether that Birkenhead Holly head Australia they cannot trust this deal and the Conservative Party is becoming only the party of the South of England the people mr. speaker about manufacturing towns we know the damage has been said by evidence of Hankerson Francis O'Grady of the T you see we know that damage that this deal will do to our manufacturing town in an inserted party is becoming only the party of the South East Home Counties conservatives we want the member for Ally gave it away the ERG have decided so the Conservative Party is becoming only the party of the ERG and this is their deal mr. speaker for the next generation they cannot trust this deal on environmental protections and the protests we have seen about climate change those voices are not heard on freedom of movement and on our rights at work generations of trade unions cannot trust this deal now we on the labour party ventures here we are representatives not delegates but I would challenge any Labour MP to disagree with the delegates of any trade union branch on in this country you cannot trust this deal the Conservative Party is making itself untrustworthy mr. speaker because inspector instead of rational policies its made itself a historical reenactment society's seeking to undo 40 years of progress true of which they played a part but their interpretation of our country's history is untrustworthy and I want to mention one lesson from our history when at the fall of the bat of France the Polish pilots who came to Britain to fight with us called Britain last Hope Island and then as now solidarity in Europe not a Britain that stands alone should be the source of our hope that was true then it's true now this deal is bad for Britain and we should vote it down dr. Liam Fox first say a word about the amendment those who are thinking of voting for this amendment tonight should not do under the illusion that it will take No Deal off the table No Deal cannot be taken off the table we can ask the EU for an extension the EU do not need to grant an extension the only way to take No Deal off the table is to accept the only deal [Applause] mr. speaker there are three reasons why I think we should vote in favor of this deal today the first is that it delivers on the referendum and let's just go back to first principles we made a contract with the people of the United Kingdom using the two elements of our Constitution direct democracy which said to them we will not I cannot make a decision therefore you must take the decision and then using representative democracy to say we the House of Commons will determine how to implement that decision that is what we're being asked to do today it is our duty to deliver on what we have promised the British people if we want to maintain faith in our electoral and political system itself 80 percent of us if only conservative and Labour benches stood on a manifesto that specifically said we would honour the result of the referendum and it's not good enough to say it's not good enough to say that you actually favor a deal and then want to vote down every single detail of every single deal that has ever made the public will regard it at best as disingenuous when those then say to us well let's have another referendum why would any citizen of this country looking at their Parliament that said we've been asked to have a referendum vote in a second referendum if we fail to deliver on what we promised in the first one is the question of faith in our electoral system itself the second reason mr. speaker why we should deliver on this is it gets us onto the territory of our future relationship itself three and a half years talking about the divorce and almost no time talking about the future relationship there will be a great debate to be had about their level of alignment we have sector by sector with the European economy that's why there is such a strong case for having a general election let's actually get out of the case about what we believe in the future relationship it also gives us the chance to help shape global trade policy in an independent trade policy at a time global trade is slowing down and finally it allows us to get on to other issues so much of our political bandwidth has been taken up by brexit that the public feel that we no longer talk about the issues that actually mattered of course there's no such thing as a perfect deal I voted for the previous deal three times with strong reservations and I've got strong reservations today but it has come to the point where we have to deliver on the contract that we made with the people of Britain and put together the sort of stupid party political game keypad would actually do what we promised you mr. speaker we've reached the fork in the road we must now choose so do we choose the route that leads us to an outward-looking confident nation punching above its waist in a european union battling for liberal values in a world that is increasingly a liberal isolationist and belligerent a course which guarantees that EU citizens many of whom have lived here since the 60s and 70s won't have to worry about proving they are entitled to health care and provides their UK counterparts in the EU who won't need to fret over what action to take should be time limited six months health care guaranteed by our government expire or do we let ourselves be led by colourful Pied Piper who chose his path and this steel not out of any conviction that his path was just rational or economically beneficial for our nation but because he believed it was the most secure way of achieving his own ambition but do we meekly follow a man whose excellent deal according to such government analysis as they've been Mead being willing to make available will leave at least we'll leave each household at least 2,000 pounds worse off and hit British jobs and living standards with the ferocity of the austerity triggered by the 2008 crash this is a deal which as the Prime Minister confirmed in may in his earlier rather rambling ad assembling contribution may not survive the transition period and could still lead to a no deal crash out do we follow in the footsteps of a man who just a month ago to a rapturous dup gathering claimed the precious union was in good good shape and a month later dealt the Union a hammer blow which could shatter it within the space of just a couple of years are we so afraid of our shadow and lucky and confidence in our capacity to work the EU system to our advantage as we have successfully done for decades that we have to fall back on a nostalgic vision of empire and a buccaneering Britain that is the choice in front of us today I hope we will choose the former path it would require one further step of people's votes to give the people the final say that would be the Democratic way away supported by the hundreds of thousands of people over there in Parliament's square as we speak that is the only way of stopping the brexit rocked in its tracks and putting this issue to bed I would all I would urge all members to follow that path and both the amendment and reject this calamitous deal antoinette sambac I've always thought wanting to agree a deal with the EU that delivers the outcome of the referendum in the terms of the 2017 manifest day that I've stood upon I fought against an undemocratic No Deal and always voted for a deal in fact I voted for a deal more times than the Prime Minister more times in the Home Secretary the foreign secretary the transport secretary and the Environment Secretary combined the need and those who voted down deal after deal have been rewarded with jobs in the cabinet I'd like to support this deal as well but the government had been sending mixed messages was ministers at the despatch-box say they want a deal anonymous number 10 sources insists that they'll break the law and deliver No Deal Oh even to this and the government Janus like ability to face in both directions I cannot support the government without assurances those assurances come in the form of the amendment in the name of my right honourable friend the member for West Dorset this will ensure that the government and the members of my former party stick to their promises it will also ensure that there's enough time to scrutinize the what the withdrawal agreement bill which will likely remain a mammoth piece of legislation the house may notice that I'm saying very little about the content of the deal I was always taught that if you have nothing nice to say say nothing suffice it to say it is substantially worse than the deal but negotiated by the right honourable member for Maidenhead and perhaps this still soul merit is to cast her redoubtable negotiating efforts in a more positive light and it is a great shame that opposition members of parliament did not vote for that deal in indeed the foreign secretary let the cat out of the bag yesterday when he said that this was a cracking deal for Northern Ireland because it will keep frictionless access to the single market my residents and businesses in Cheshire would like that frictionless market and if it's such a great deal for Northern Ireland why can't my constituents have it - I will smack the deal subject to the reassurance of the amendment but I don't like the deal and given the choice of a dodgy deal or remain I suspect many constituents would opt to their latter and as such if I get an opportunity to vote on an amendment in in respect of the people's vote I will vote for that amendment no she's not in her place that make up a blood didn't intend any discord to see to the Honourable lady and a sue Bree mr. speaker on June 26 in 2016 we had a referendum which was in effect a snapshot on a single day a distorted photograph was obtained it was distorted by false images it was distorted by fix on the bus by fake promises of getting an easy quick deal that would convey all the benefits of the free trade that our country has enjoyed for so many years years as a member of the European Union it was given and it was created by preying on people's fears and fueling their prejudices at the same time three and a half years later we now at least have some clarity on two occasions this government has negotiated a deal with the European Union now I think that the Honourable lady has just said that this is indeed a very bad deal for all the really good reasons that so many honorable and right honorable members have said this place remains divided and the answer is not yet another general election the last general election didn't help us it didn't solve anything only way now to solve this matter is to get it back where it began in effect which is to the people to put that deal to a confirmatory referendum mr. speaker people are entitled to change their minds as the evidence changes and they now see with clarity what brexit is all about and I'd young people who weren't able to vote in 2016 they surely must now have the right to be a part and to determine their own futures given that so many of them will be affected now I don't have about Tyler will be so affected by brexit and it's right to that everybody now that we know what it looks like and this deal by goodness is such a bad deal it's bad for the Union it's bad for job and he undoubtedly opens a back door to the No Deal that certain members of the Conservative Party undoubtedly want and I gently say to honourable a right honourable colleagues opposite how they can sit there claiming to be unionists and to vote for this deal defies belief mr. speaker what we need is that people's vote and that's why over a million people today have come to London let's get it back to the British people let's get Brits it done but by way of taking it back for that confirmatory referendum Rebecca long Bailey mr. speaker and I want to thank all members of this house for their passionate contributions today and I'd like to thank the chancellor for the Duchy of Lancaster for sharing his mints earlier with the shadow punch bench but that's where my joviality ends sadly because today is a historic day it's a day on which less than 650 people sat here now will agonize over whether they are about to make the right choice for their communities industries and future generations and today they asked themselves is what is before us today truly a deal which protects and enhances their communities and sadly the simple and Eric irreconcilable truth is that it does not and as the shadow Secretary of State responsible for business energy and industrial strategy I want to make it clear to this house if agreed this deal would be a disaster for this country and we must reject it mr. speaker our workers rights we simply cannot trust what the Prime Minister is saying they say this deal protects workers yet instead of strengthening protections they have specifically changed the legally binding withdrawal agreement to remove any commitments on workers rights and I think it tells us something that not a single trade union in this country not a single one backed this deal the tea you see say and I quote this would be a disaster for working people unison upset it would risk every workplace right and leave public services exposed and vulnerable while unites a by further diluting the legal protections for labor and environmental standards the Prime Minister has made the laws that underpin workers rights and public safety extremely vulnerable in future trade deals Mr Speaker I could go on but we should also look at the business case please forgive me for not giving way were extremely pushed for time what does this do you mean for business but it's simply for business for our industries and our manufacturing it reduces access to the market of our biggest trade partner threatening jobs up and down our country at a time when more investment is needed not less there is no economic impact assessment and no accompanying legal advice only that I wonder why because according to the Guardian Britain is uncaused to sacrifice as much as a hundred and thirty billion in lost GDP growth over the next 15 years if the praxic deal goes ahead and industry's been clear on this it needs that market access it needs a customs union to keep vital supply chains flowing yet this deal sells them out no barrier free access no customs union instead it was the fantasy of chasing damaging trade deals with Donald Trump over the needs of our country again mr. speaker you don't have to take my word for it make UK who represent British manufacturing our clear commitment to the closest possible trading relationship in gaad's have gone and that mr. speaker this deal will add cost and bureaucracy and our companies will face a lack of clarity inhibiting investment and planning even the CBI have added the deal remains inadequate on services and that they have now serious concerns about the direction of the future UK EU relationship so this is a bad deal for industry a bad deal for manufacturing and more importantly a bad deal for jobs for mr. speaker let's look at what this deal will mean for the environment let's see what green groups are saying about it greener UK for instance they brace use order there is an excessive noise in the chamber it's very unfair on the Honourable lady who's developing her contribution let's listen to each other courteously Rebecca long Baily speaker greener UK and they've raised huge concern saying environmental safeguards are absent from the new withdrawal agreement and that the toothless environment bill put forward by the government and I quote provides neither an enforcement body with independence nor a commitment to non regression in domestic law all at a time when we are facing a climate crisis across the world this is simply not acceptable and mr. speaker this government is asking us to simply trust them on all these issues quite tellingly without setting out any detail or legislation today the Prime Minister says nobody in his government wants to reduce rights or standards in this country well there's a remarkable statement especially when you look at their track record how can we trust them [Applause] well members on the opposite ventures can cheer all they like but how can we trust as Secretary of State for business energy and industrial strategy when she has made clear that the small businesses she and Visitors they're being and I quote no regulation whatsoever no minimum wage no maternity opportunity rights no unfair dismissal rights no pension rights how can we trust the foreign secretary who wrote a pamphlet called escaping the straightjacket which outlined his plans to cut workers rights and regulations and how can we trust the Prime Minister himself who has said the UK should scrap the social chapter and has claimed the current weight of employment regulation is back-breaking mr. speaker the answer is we can't trust them if their intentions were to maintain current standards that why have they slashed every level playing field commitment in the withdrawal agreement so Mr Speaker we are about to make history and in the final moments before we end to those lobbies MPs will consider the weight placed upon their shoulders is this deal rights for their communities industries and future generations no it isn't agreeing this deal doesn't get brexit done instead it would sell out our country and sell out our communities leaving us open to an onslaught deregulation reduction of Rights putting jobs at risk and it's something no Labour MP nor any other MP worries about protecting community could ever support language service if I could go [Applause] [Music] mr. speaker our democracy is a precious thing and this Parliament is a special place our democracy depends on respect for difference and this Parliament thrives on respecting the sincerity and the commitment to public service of every member and that is why I know that deciding how to vote today for many members will have been difficult and it is important that all of us recognize that for those who argued to remain and still argue that that is the best outcome they do who is patriots but they take a different view from some of us and for those who argue to leave and have consistently argued that we should leave and have argued for a better deal we should all recognize that they are arguing for what they believe is best for our country I respect those who have argued for both positions but I respect most of all the many people in this house who argued that we should remain who during the course of that campaign believe that is the best course for the country but who now recognize that the people having spoken that verdict must be respected and that is quite not yet not yet and that not yet and that is why in a debate characterized by many brilliant and passionate speeches the speech that stood out for me was the speech by my right honourable friend the member for me she argued for romaine but she also recognized that when the people had spoken their verdict had to be respected and it is not just on our benches it is on every bench members like the member for great Grimsby or the member for Don Valley or for other Valley they all argued that we should remain but now they recognize that there is something more precious than being a lever or a remainer that is being a Democrat [Applause] [Music] what unites us in this house is that we are Democrats and we voted we voted in this House of Commons to have a referendum we voted in this House of Commons to say that we would respect the verdict of the people we voted overwhelmingly for article 50 which honored that referendum and said that we would leave how will it look to those who sent us here now if we say to them we made those sacred promises but now we choose to dishonor them it is the case it is the case I know it is the case I know that there will be individuals who are know who will have specific qualms and concerns about this deal and they exist all across this house but it is also the case it is also the case that the time has come for us to decide none of us none of us in a country that voted 52 48 none of us in a house of 650 members none of us in a country of 65 million people can ensure that we have our own perfect brexit no but what we can do what we can do is we can be prepared to put aside our perfect for the sake of the common good and that is what the public wants us to do now in in in his speech the the member knew I won't in his speech the member for Holborn and some Pancras laid out some of the concerns that he has about the political declaration but he knows and we know that if we vote today for the deal if we vote for this withdrawal agreement we can then move on to ensure that the future economic partnership that we all want can be framed in the best interests of the British people and we have given I shall give eight adorable gentlemen but I'm grateful for his persistence [Music] [Applause] we can ensure order the Chancellor the Duchy is not currently giving way mr. Michel go thank you thank you very much with speaker do and during that discussion about our future economic partnership will every party in this house every voice in this house will have equal weight and equal value and making sure that we can deliver a brexit deal that delivers for the 52 and for the 48 is our intention and let me be clear we on this side of those no I shan't and no I won't however no however however tempting it might be I will decline on this okay and though the truth is because no deal can ever satisfy anyone we could spend all our time searching for that elusive perfect deal but what would that position look like to the country what would it look like to all those who have sent us here what would it look like to the Honourable lady's constituents who voted to leave and expected that vote to be honored they voted to put trust in this place to put trust in Parliament to make a vital decision if we ducked that decision if we did there if we delay that I'm afraid the people will feel a sense of depression and dismay and demoralisation but the Parliament that they hoped would keep its promises has chosen once again to duck its responsibilities now I am I am player Olsen that everyone who has spoken in this debate has spoken for the best of motives including my right honorable friend the member for West Dorset a dear and old friend of mine but one of the things that I would say one of the things that I would say to him and to others Thank You mr. speaker it's the chance of a giveaway everybody has their beliefs and everybody does what they believe is right including our own will friend the member of West Dorset if the bill that follows the meaningful vote were to fail how would the government avoid no deal before the end of October also the virtue one of the things that this govern is absolutely committed to doing is making sure that we have a deal and one of the things that are also committed to doing is making sure that we obey the law one of the things that we're also committed to doing is making sure that we respect our the voices of all of those in this house let me stay firmly from this despatch-box this government is committed to ensuring that we have a deal and the best way the best way of getting that deal leaving on October the 31st and being able to move on to the other issues which the people in this country want us to discuss is by accepting the Honorable motives of the mover of the amendment but recognizing also that if we accept that amendment we will not have a meaningful vote today we will not unlock the door to our deal being passed we will have voted I'm afraid in the terms of that motion for more delay and I'm afraid and I'm afraid on that basis I would urge everyone who wants us know who wants us to honor the referendum mandate to recognize that that amendment however sincerely it's being put is unnecessary what is necessary now is for us to reach a moment of decision in the in the other place law judge the leader of the cross bench peers in some respects the voice of moderation in that house explicitly said that the time is passed for people to quibble and question the precise terms of this deal he said a former Lord Chief Justice the Parliament needs to get on with it otherwise there will be profound damage to public confidence in this place and that that is the question that every member of the house must ask how will our constituents feel if tonight we vote to support this deal without the amendment our constituents will feel that a cloud has been lifted [Applause] [Music] Parliament I've listened to them with respect that the vote in 2016 that we promised to honor has after three and a half years of deadlock and division been honoured by a house that at last is ready to unite and that is the toys that faceis is all because if we don't vote for this deal unamended then I'm afraid that all of the all of those who send us here watching our deliberations will say that Parliament has failed to meet the moment Parliament has failed to rise to the occasion Parliament has failed to ensure that an important Democratic vote the most important vote was the greatest number of votes cost for any proposition on our history will be delayed will be dishonored and will not be delivered and that is why I urge everyone in this house to recognise our first duty [Applause] our first duty is to the principle that underpins this place said no the right honorable general is responding to debate and he will do so to a conclusion mr. marvel day our first duty to our constituents and to our country is to keep our promises this house said that we would honor that referendum mandate the time has come and the question that all of us must answer when we return to our constituencies is did you vote to break the deadlock did you vote to end the division of these days did you vote to bring the country together [Applause] [Music] we'll support the government this afternoon to do just that [Applause] to move the questions well I am indeed posing the questions I'm extremely grateful the question is that amendment a be made as many as are that have been in say I of the country no clearly at YouTube but the question is that amendment a be made as many thought that opinion say aye of the country now tell us for the eyes Sangam debonair and Matt Weston tellers for the nose mr. Stuart Andrew and mr. Ian Stuart lock the doors Oh [Applause] Oh [Applause] [Music] [Music] the eyes to the right 322 the nose to the left 306 [Applause] thank you the eyes to the right 322 the nose to the left 306 so the eyes have it the eyes have it unlock the question is colleagues that the motion as amended be agreed to us when is other open as a I love the country now I think the eyes have it the eyes have it but we now come to motion number two our man knows that I've selected the manuscript amendment to the name of Peter Karl and others minister or whip on duty to milk normally not moved thank you order the Prime Minister speak oh thank you [Applause] I'm very grateful to you I'm very grateful to every to the House of Commons staff everybody who's put themselves out everybody who's come to give up their time in this debate today it's been a very important debate and exceptional moment for our country except a moment for our Parliament alas the opportunity to have a meaningful vote has effectively been passed up because the meaningful vote has been voided of meaning but I wish the house to know that I'm not daunted or dismayed by this particular result it probably became likely once it was obvious that the amendment from me my right honourable friend the member of West Dorset was going to remain on the order paper I continued in the very strong belief that the best thing for the UK and for the whole of Europe is for us to leave with this new deal on October to anticipate the questions that are coming from the benches of it I will not negotiate a delay with the EU and neither does the law compel me to do so I will tell our friends and colleagues in the EU exactly what I have told everyone in the last 88 days that I've served as Prime Minister but further delay would be bad for this country and bad for democracy so next week the government will introduce the legislation needed for us to leave the EU with our new deal on October the 30-person I hope I hope that our European Union colleagues and friends will not be attracted as as benches opposite are or rather I should say the front bench is by delay I don't think that they'll be attracted by the way and I hope that then honourable members faced with a choice of our new deal our new deal for the UK and the European Union will change their minds because it was pretty close today I hope that they will change I hope that they will change their minds and support this deal in overwhelming numbers since I became Prime Minister I've said we must get on and get brexit done on October the 31st so that this country can move on mr. speaker that policy that policy remains unchanged no delays and I will continue to do all I can to get brexit done on October the 31st and I continue to commend this excellent deal mr. speaker to the house [Applause] or in the border mr. Jeremy Corbyn Thank You mr. speaker I welcome today's vote Parliament has clearly spoken or dare or Buddha apologist the Prime Minister was heard yes he was don't argue the toss with the chair I'm telling you what the situation is and everybody could detect the Prime Minister was heard and the leader of the Opposition will be heard it is a simple and unarguable as that Jeremy Corbyn give Mr Speaker I welcome today's vote it's an emphatic decision by this house that has declined to back the Prime Minister's deal today and clearly voted to stop a No Deal crash out from the European Union the Prime Minister must now comply with the law he can no longer use the threat of a No Deal crash out to blackmail members to support his sellout deal labour is not prepared to sell out the communities that we represent we're not prepared to sell out their future and we believe that ultimately the people must have the final say on brexit which actually only the Labour Party is offering today is a historic day for Parliament because it said it will not be blackmailed by a prime minister who is apparently prepared once again to defy a law passed by this Parliament I invite him to think very carefully about the remarks he just made about refusing apparently to apply for the extension which the EU number-two act requires him to do point of order mr. Ian blackbird Thank You mr. speaker I'm most grateful I think all of us in this house and aware of the responsibilities that we have this is a crisis that we are ready and I'm thankful that the house has voted the way it has done on the amendment this afternoon that is a clear expression from this house that we cannot crash out on the 31st of October Mr Speaker I want to ask you what we can do to make sure that the Prime Minister respects the law of the land that the Prime Minister respects the been act and sends a letter to the European Council seeking that extension and I wonder what we can do to make sure that the government does not drain forward a bill until that extension as has been instructed is delivered upon and any failure of a prime minister who thinks is above the law well Prime Minister you'll find yourself in court I don't mean it in any spirits of discourtesy to the right honourable gentleman but I think his contribution was rhetorical in the sense that I don't think he was particularly inviting my immediate response if he was doing so I would say to him but I think judicious consideration of these matters is always beneficial to colleagues across the house everybody of course must abide by the law the right honourable gentleman is versatile dexterous and experienced in the use of the parliamentary weaponry to try to ensure that his point of view prevails so we'll leave it there for now point of order J Swenson Thank You mr. speaker the prime ministers deal was a bad deal and the public deserved to have the final say not just the hundreds of thousands [Music] or do I recognize there are very strongly held views on both sides of the house on both sides of this debate but the leader of the Liberal Democrats must be heard and it is unconscionable if there is an attempt to stop someone being heard Joe Swinson Thank You mr. speaker and the people who are outside this building right now will be heard and they deserve the final say along with millions across the country to the most urgent thing right now mr. speaker is that the Prime Minister complies with the law and I ask your guidance would it be possible to suspend the sitting for a short time to allow the Prime Minister to go and send his letter and come back [Applause] I'm grateful to the honorable lady it is not order it is not my intention to suspend the city the point will have been heard by the Prime Minister I say to the Honourable lady all sorts of things are possible but as to what is judged appropriate at this time I think the puckish grin on the contours of the Honourable lady's face suggests that she was making a point but not expecting such a decision I'm grateful too of course I will come to the earth now in momentarily of course I will come to the honourable gentleman a point of order Sir Oliver let way and you mr. speaker Mr Speaker I want to say first of all to the Prime Minister that I actually agreed with what he said at the end there and that I am absolutely certain he will comply with the law I want to say to friends and colleagues across the house who helped us achieve this amendment which I believe to be profound in the national interest but I am very grateful for that cooperation but there are ways are now going to part because for many of us on these benches who have cooperated in preventing a No Deal exit by putting in place or helping to put in place that then act and help me to keep it it's insurance policy in place today now when the Prime Minister brings the withdrawal implementation bill to the House of Commons we will be voting for it we will continue to vote for it we will seek to ensure that it becomes the law before the 31st of October and if it does so become the law this country will leave on the 31st of October of hope that I share with the prime minister but it will do so on the basis of knowing that should anything go wrong we will not crash out without a deal on that day I'm most grateful to the right honorable judgment and say were many members of the House for the clarity of his exposition well people take their own view of it but it's certainly clear and very pithy and I'm grateful to the right honourable gentleman the point of order mr. Nigel dogs ok this this decision now will give further time for detailed consideration of the bill when it comes forward it will also give an opportunity to consider in detail whatever amendments come forward it has the effect of not approving this deal today and of course we will examine all the details of the bill and all amendments in the light of our overriding concern about the constitutional economic integrity of the Union that is our priority it will remain our priority in the days ahead and that is the basis on which we will now proceed in a timely and sensible manner our proceeding I hope will take it in the right spirit having known him for over 20 years I say that I feel that our proceedings would not be complete without a point of order from the Honorable Judge on the member of a stone the chair of the European scrutiny well somebody somebody is suggesting a division but I will not allow a division on that matter hey Boyd waters William cash there is much talk about the law of the land the law of the lands it stands at this moment in time is quite simple section 1 of the withdrawal that 2018 category 2 states that the European communities act is repealed on exit day which is the 31st of October just in case anyone can't read who is grateful and until the house will be indebted to the Honorable gentleman buries legal exegesis and there are other views on that matter but the Honorable gentleman has registered his with his customary force my point of water Johanna cherry mr. speaker if members were leaving the chamber I understand the disappointment of the Honorable and learning lady but I cannot compel members to remain I cannot to coin the phrase take anybody hostage I do not have the power to incarcerate so I'm trying to be helpful to the Honorable and leaded lady I'm playing for time but I'm playing for time if members who quite unaccountably do not wish to listen to the Honorable and learn it lady would leave the chamber quickly and quietly the rest of us including assuredly the chair wishing to hear the Honorable lady can do so I think people are gradually beetling out of the chamber if the chair of the education select committee feels that he can be fill out and conduct his conversation outside that will be very greatly appreciated by the chair thank you boy no more dad you're an attorney thank you for your indulgence viewers in Scotland are accustomed to the sight of the Tory benches emptying when speaker's members of parliament representatives Scottish seats get up and I'm very much looking forward to seeing that in the SNP party political broadcasts in the soon to come general election but Mr Speaker the point I want to make is an important one the Prime Minister has failed to secure an approval of the withdrawal agreement today in terms of the been Act and that means that under the law of this land he should be retreating to number 10 to pen a letter to the European Union in terms of the act and in terms of the undertakings as so described by the Secretary of State flags to the European Union the undertakings that he gave to the Scottish Court fortunately mr. speaker were back in court on Monday morning and it will be possible then to secure the court's assistance if the Prime Minister has floated the law and the promises he gave to the court but Mr Speaker can I ask this shoot the Scots shoot Scotland's supreme court mandate you to sign the letter required by the act on behalf of this Parliament will you do so thank you I'm grateful to the Honourable unleaded lady I have no expectation of being so asked and whatever I have no aspirations to the exalted status that would have been attained by a person so requested or indeed directed by the court but the short outs of the Honourable and learning lady is that if I were instructed by this house I would do as instructed and if I were directing or instructed by a court I would do as directed that is my instinctive reaction I would of course seek further and better particulars I would take advice but I repeat I haven't been asked I'm not expecting to be asked I'm not looking to be asked but I would do as I was required to do and I would have no hesitation in so doing yes yes indeed point of order Caroline Lucas very much Mr Speaker I welcome the vote on this amendment because it shows that a majority of this house has stood up for more democracy not less they've stood up for more seclude for more scrutiny not less and they have also voted to rule out a disastrous No Deal but I believe it will also give us a chance mr. speaker to let the people have a final say as they're demanding outside here now over a million of them demanding that right the Prime Minister has changed his own mind more times than we can possibly count most recently on the issue of the border in the Irish Sea it cannot be right that the British people are the only ones were not allowed to change their minds and I look forward to the opportunity that we they spent affords us to come back to put whatever deal is in front of us to that confirmatory ballot order I say to her publicly what I said to her privately that I'm sorry that on account of constraints of time and the desire to bring matters to a conclusion I was not able to call her today in the debate that she has at least had a mini speech in the form of her point of order and I know that no power on earth would or should stop the Honourable lady contributing frequently on future occasions and I certainly look forward to that yes very very well point of order mr. Behrman coker mr. speaker is there any power that you have to enable this house and indeed the public to properly understand what the Prime Minister has actually just said to us according to the law passed by this house if the deal will no deal is not agreed then there is a letter attached that acts which the Prime Minister is required to send today the 19th of October now it may be my misunderstanding mr. speaker but I have no idea from what the prime minister said as to whether he was actually going to write and sign that letter or whether he's not going to do that if he's not going to do it mr. speaker that means he's not part of complying with the law that has been passed by this house any of our constituents who don't comply with the law face the consequences is there anything that we can do to properly understand whether the Prime Minister intends to comply with the legislation and send a letter or whether he's simply going to ignore it thinking and I'm not a lawyer I say that is met with some very considerable pride is that the legal position is clear and id8 dissent from what the Honorable gentleman has just said about the legal position that ministers have made and I say this quite neutral a number of statements about adherence to or compliance with the so called been Act those statements haven't always been immediately and obviously compatible with each other I think we have to await the development of events in general terms it is of course true to say that ministers have emphasized their commitment to observe the law including the Prime Minister has said that on a number of occasions it is also true that the Prime Minister has indicated that he is not willing to seek an extension my understanding of the legal position is the same as that of the honourable gentleman I think that we must await the development of events the honourable and learning lady from the Scottish National Party raised a similar concern about this matter it has now been echoed by the Honourable gentleman further enlightenment may follow when the leader of the house uncoils when he uncoils and addresses us from the despatch-box I don't know I'm not psychic we shall see but what I would say is I think that matters are coming to a conclusion today but the house will sit on Monday and I confidently anticipate that the Honorable gentleman will be in his place and ready to leap to his feet with alacrity to advance his point of view and that of others the honorable gentlemen propulsion is shaking his head in a mildly eccentric manner not at me well we're deeply grateful I wasn't looking to call the Honourable if he particularly wanted to raise a point of order and especially as he used to be my constituent far be it from me to deny him not sad eh ok fair enough I see a point of order the leader of the house point of order mr. Jacob Riis mark Thank You mr. speaker in the light of today's decision I should like to inform the house that Monday's business will now be a debate on a motion relating to section 13 1b of the European Union withdrawal Act 2018 and I shall make a further business statement on Monday the well I note what the leader has said and we will hear what others have to say and a point of order and that's been done by the honourable gentleman on a point of order on a point of order the shadow leader of the House memory guys can I thank the leader for making that point water and in response would like to ask him through you mr. speaker why we are having a rerun of the vote if that's not the case could the bill be published and could the bill be debated in an orderly way and thirdly how does courteous is this to Her Majesty the Queen when we are still debating the Queen's Speech when are we liked me to debate the Queen the remainder of days of the Queen's Speech well I I know what the Honorable it is of course I'll come to the honourable gentleman the boy bottoms wheat Wishart also grateful to have weeded a house for a noticing that additional piece of business on Monday and I she deeply share the concerns of the Honorable wait they only believe when it comes to issues first of all what's happening to the Queen's Speech what will now happen to the debates that supposed to happen and the votes that we're going to be supposed to be concluded the Queen's Speech on Tuesday and Wednesday this is a huge disc artist to the house if the right honourable gentleman wanted a war on this government steel it could have had 20 minutes ago that was the right thing to do we deserve some sort of explanation as to why this was being brought back on Monday so quickly any conversation of discussions across usual channels and no new discussions of the be at all with other partisans house I think he asked about his feet and explain a little bit more about what he's intending and why he never took advantage of the opportunity to have a move in this just 20 minutes ago boiling water was to Gavin Brennan on a point of order this figure shouldn't the leader have sought to make an emergency business statement if if if that is what his intention was so that we could do just what the shadow leader from the SNP has done a my honourable friend is just them and ask questions of the leaders to his intentions for what's happening to the rest of the important business we have before us that is yes that is yes and I intend no discourtesy to the leader of the house it had been intimated to me albeit not by the right honourable gentleman that in the event of the government being defeated on the OE amendment a it would be the executives intention to bring forward an emergency business statement and although an emergency business statement is often narrow in its terms because it flows from a particular event on a given subject it is susceptible of questioning whereas doing it on a point of order is most unusual and doesn't readily lend itself to question me and so you know it is to be frank unsatisfactory but I didn't intend any discourtesy to the leader and I'm quite certain that he thought that he was doing the right thing he wouldn't knowingly do the wrong thing but I think it is it is less than helpful in terms of the exchanges and and I will have to take advice and reflect on these matters further because I did not receive advance notification of any length of the intention that's still less of the intention to do it in this way yes I will come to the right honorable gentleman of course point of order mrs. Helen Goodman mr. speaker well in the light of the very brief remarks from the leader of the house I wondered whether it had been made clear to you when the second reading of the bill which the prime minister said would be introduced will take place and which days next week we will have for the two days to complete debate and vote on the Queen's Speech well it will be of course most useful to have clarification on that matter the clerk at the table is waving in front of me most helpfully I hasten to add the helpful wave as opposed to an unhelpful wave notice of presentation of bill the European Union withdrawal agreement bill in the name of the Secretary of State for exiting the European Union I heard also as the Honourable lady did the Prime Minister refer to the government's intention to introduce the withdrawal and implementation bill it is perfectly open to the government to do that indeed it is perfectly open to the government to do that next week and I had anticipated or surmised that that might be the likely course of action for the government to follow which would be an entirely reasonable course of action but I'm not at this stage receiving any explicit indication that that is what the government intends to do on Monday and this doesn't altogether assists the house the kulluk colleagues can reflect further on these matters a point of order mr. Mack McFadden thank you mrs. because this is a slightly odd situation because the question that I want to ask I'd really like to ask to the leader of the house but because he's not me a business statement he's made a point of order I find myself having to pursue to you I am of course very welcome if he wants to get to his feet to help us clarify matters I think a lot of us want to know about Monday is is it your understanding I have to say that the government intends to bring back a motion to approve the agreement struck with the European Union under Section 13 1b or is it your understanding that they intend to bring back the legislation implementing that agreement well as things stand at 3:17 on Saturday afternoon I have heard what the right honourable gentleman has heard the government seems to be planning to bring forward a vote under the relevant section of existing legislation rather than to bring forward the withdrawal and implementation bill it is not for me to make the government's argument for it and such an argument has not been advanced it may be that they are thinking that the vote would be a different vote to that which has taken place today and they may find reinforcements in that view from the right honourable gentleman the member for West Dorset to give back one example and but I repeat that an emergency business statement with greater clarity and the opportunity for interrogation would have been very considerably more helpful to the house point of order dr. Philippa Whitford thank you very much mr. speaker as someone who's meant to lead for the Scottish National Party in the supposed Queen's Beach debate on the NHS and trade deals I simply need to know am i preparing a speech as many other members across the house would you know there is work planned for Monday and Tuesday and I think it's incredibly disrespectful that we simply don't know what we're doing on Monday I don't want to repeat the position over and over again I've already indicated the situation is obviously less than satisfactory but you know I've got an enormous regard for the number and quality of the gray cells of the Honourable lady so it seems to me that if she is required at short notice to shift from the painting of one type of speech to the construction of another and it will be for her the equivalent of swatting a Hornet it won't cause are any trouble at all the point of order Mary grey speaker as the chair of our proceedings here today can you tell us if it is in order for the government to put a motion before the House today which is effectively defeated and then to retai below the exact same motion hoping for a different result perhaps in anticipation of certain conversations that may happen over the weekend between the prime minister and people who have voted one way and then and perhaps on the basis of what may or may not appear in the Sunday papers is it in order to bring the same motion twice on consecutive days do we not have to a duty to our constituents and to the country to let this matter rest I'm alert to the argument that the Honorable lady has made I think the fairest thing to say is as I have been advised by the Clarke that our ruling on Monday on this matter would be sensible I must say to colleagues that the chair seeks to be as dexterous and versatile as possible in attending to colleagues various points of view and in responding to questions put to the chair it cannot always be expected that the chair will do so immediately when something is raised which had not previously been put to the chair of which therefore there was no advance notice and which has not therefore been discussed with expert advisors it's perfectly reasonable to seek that expert advice to discuss it with those so advising to reflect upon the matter in the cold light of day and then to come back to the house with an informed as opposed to a speculative conclusion point of order mr. Martin Whitfield for mr. speaker and I'm cogent of your recent comments it would seem to me that we had a business statement setting out what was going to happen next week in the normal way that has now been altered on a point of order and I'm not inside to be personally convinced that that was an appropriate point of order and if it wasn't then we have not received notice in this house of what's going to happen on Monday and my question to the chair is are the government tables well to the business on Monday using the method of a point of order or should and invite not be made for an emergency motion that we could listen to and respond to didn't put things on the order paper but I repeat that this was not an emergency business statement it could have been but it wasn't and that is a deeply relevant matter so although the government can table that which he wishes he can go to the table office and seek to a table propositions this is not an emergency business statement and I'm not aware that there are precedents for most things in this house are there not for everything but I can't recall readily an example of a business statement made purely on a point of order I couldn't recall it's probably happened from time to time but in any case this isn't an emergency business statement as such it is an indication of intent but it's not an emergency business statement there's such a point of order Hugh Gaffney fire missiles to become that I managed to the Queen's Speech which I have went for TV licence well they stole we consider then one day and all of the space in the same table two helos amendments I certainly expect that the Queen's Speech debate will be conducted and it is to be expected that it will be continued after all the leader of the House who must have contemplated the possible scenarios in all solemnity informed the house on Thursday of the business for Monday and Tuesday and he has not disavowed it and the nod of the head from the right honourable gentleman it confirms that he is not disavowing the intention to continue with the Queen's speech so I hope that the Honourable gentleman derives some succor from that fact it is necessary for him not only to listen to me that to observe the head movements of the right honourable gentleman member the North East Somerset boy mr. David Lyndon very much mr. speaker on a point of order I seek your clarification on a procedural point quite clearly the leader of the house is not going to bring forward a business statement for the house in it's quite clear from these proceedings that members wish to question lead of the house is there a provision with understanding orders to either suspend the house or give you an opportunity to consider an urgent question to the leader of the house this afternoon nor do they may be able to question him urgent questions are not taken at this time and I'm not sure that that will greatly advance matters I will here remaining points of order and will reflect on the other point that the Honorable gentleman has made a point of order Kirsty Blackburn Thank You mr. speaker I've not been into the table office but I understand that the orders of the day from Monday have been tabled and they don't in fact include the Queen's Speech debate for Monday so I'm not sure whether the leader of those nord there mayn't that we would be having a Queen's Speech debate on Monday or we wouldn't be having a Queen's Speech on Monday because the orders apparently just include debate on the European withdrawal Act and obviously most of us have not had the chance to go to the table office and see this order paper and it would be very useful mr. speaker if you could do some weak compelled leaders those to stand up and tell us what that nord meant whether we are having the Queen's Speech debate on Monday or whether we're not having the Queen's speech on Monday because the details that be placed in the table office appear to say that we're not having the Queen's speech debate on Monday helpful if the leader would elaborate it Aleta would care to come to the box and elaborate I think that would be I think that would be helpful because at the moment there is an extreme ambiguity about intention and that if I may very politely say to the leader cannot be right a leader Mr Speaker I think you worry on Julie that there will be a full emergency business statement on Monday which is part of what I was saying so that people will have a full appreciation of what business there will be this was made on a point of order because the situation has arisen urgently and it was important to make it clear for the house straight away what will happen but as honorable and right honourable members will no statements come very early in the day and therefore there will be an opportunity for a full understanding of how business will develop with regard to the Queen's Speech debate the Queen speak the debate will continue but Monday will be as I set out on the point of order I raised a few moments ago via Pete's orderly it will be if it's orderly and I will reflect upon that matter and the government isn't the arbiter of what is orderly as the right honourable gentleman knows and as I indicated to him in the course of the exchanges on the business question on Thursday and that is a matter the Brooks have no contradiction whatsoever even if people feel that they are immensely knowledgeable about procedure or have a right to have their own way or both they can do so only within the rules point of order is Chris Wesley speaking further to the what appears to be a sort of quasi business statement from the leader of the house which was or wasn't about matters of matters that the house may be discussing on Monday but we haven't had proper notice of nor would we have had a day intervening of anything tabled today for discussion on Monday which would be the normal course of events the suggestion that we should repeat the same debate on essentially the same matter section 13 B motion would surely be contrary to all of our normal practices where the government of the day if a matter has been disposed of cannot repetitiously and vexatious ly keep asking that same question until they get the answer that they prefer so Mr Speaker I don't ask for you to rule on this matter now but I would strongly urge you to take account of the fact that many of us would feel that this would be an abuse of the power of the executive just because they didn't get they answered they wanted today to come back on Monday and as the same thing again well I can care with that sound advice from the clerk at the table the Honorable gentleman ray has made a good case which should be duly considered if I heard the Honorable gentleman correctly I think he said that he was not looking for me to make a definitive ruling from the chair now I'm most grateful to the Honorable gentleman for that because I'm not minded to do so however I say in all seriousness and kanda to the Honorable gentleman again that he has made a good case I have heard his point it has been amplified by many other colleagues and I will reflect on it and give what I hope is a fully considered ruling on this matter on Monday I will do so of course having taken advice in appropriate quarters I hope that that is helpful to the Honorable gentleman indeed to the house a point of order mr. Hillery been very much indeed mr. speaker further to your response to the Honorable member and you're going to make a ruling on Monday I'm just concerned if a section 13 1 B motion that were to be tabled from house to consider on Monday which seems to me to be what we've just chosen to amend today that there would be an opportunity for an amendment or amendments to be placed down to it and I mean depending on when the government may table such a motion could you give an indication whether you'll be willing to accept a manuscript amendment to it once we know what your ruling is all month yeah [Music] then I will come to the right origin I think I can assure the right honourable general on that point my instinctive and unfailing approach to the best of my limited ability is to try to facilitate a house it flows from that that I do not want the house to be disadvantaged in the ordinary course of events one would hope that there was adequate notice of emotion and therefore an opportunity for amendments to be submitted on an earlier day if there is no reasonable opportunity in this case but there is and I say but there is it remains to be seen whether there is an orderly motion before the house tabled that rather short notice it must be right that there should be an opportunity for manuscript amendments to be tabled so that alternative propositions can be put before the house so I think I can say without fear of contradiction that that would be the case and it would be I think desire in terms of processing these matters for any such amendments if the government's motion has gone down today a simple nod of the head would suffice its grateful and to be down that such amendments to be down by midday on Monday but you know I am happy to hear are the views about that but that would be my instinct that by mid day would be helpful but yes there would be an opportunity for manuscript amendments and of course a point of order sir Oliver let win do you mr. speaker that there are two points that I just want to put on record that may be worth considering when you're making your decision about whether this is an orderly proposal the first is the contrary to what one might assume it is not the case that even if the Prime Minister has written his letter tonight as I believe he now will Omar that this motion which the government is now put down is in a substantially different context would have a substantially different effect from the one which they tried today but which the House rejected and the reason for that is that in the Ben Act we provided very specifically that if there is a validation by the house through an approval of the withdrawal agreement subsequent to the depositing of the letter with the European Union that letter can then automatically and immediately be withdrawn so what the government is attempting in this motion to do is nothing more nothing less than to repeat what would have been the effect of today on Monday secondly I think it is important that the decision of the house today when it passed the amendment and then subsequently passed the motion as amended was specifically that the house was withholding approval unless and until the legislative stages of implantation had occurred and this very clearly flies in the face of that because it seeks the approval of the house without the legislative stages having been approved now I understand entirely why the government is trying to do this because of course it would negate the whole effect of the amendment today rather than moving us on to the second reading of the withdrawal implementation bill as I had hoped and expected but I wanted to point those things out to you because I think it's material when deciding whether it's orderly there's an extremely helpful series of points from the right honourable gentleman I'm merely in responding to the right honourable gentleman repeat what others will have heard namely that the Prime Minister himself talked about introducing the legislation I cannot recall off the top of my head whether he referred to when that would happen I didn't know whether he said that it would be next week but he certainly did indicate that that was the intention so one deduce from that that that was indeed what the government was thing to do rather than to introduce a motion under an earlier act so that - it is in a sense grist to the mill of the concern expressed by the Honorable gentleman member for giggling and by others and and it is most helpful of the right problem gentleman to offer me his expert view in this public forum and the better to assist me in deliberating on this matter in the next couple of days in fact less than a couple of days thank you yes I will come to the on board under a point of order symmetric Grady Thank You mr. speaker the orders that are in the table the orders the orders that are in the table office not really sure if I have a point of order to be honest mr. speaker they've the orders the orders of the table office make no mention of the Queen's speech whatsoever so I assume what the leader of the house meant is that the Queen's speech to meet will take place on other days but what they do provide for is a motion under the terms of the European withdrawal act for up to 90 minutes which of course means if there were no you cues or statements we'd all be going home at five o'clock on Monday and is there any way that the government can actually provide for more time for to be given how heavily subscribed and traced laws how many members for very understandable reasons were not even to be called today what provision is there for the government to make more time available than just the statutory in 90 minutes if we are to be having a meaningful vote on Monday people are bound by the standing order but it's possible to put a business evaluation down but it would have to be done before the close of business today I'm very sorry that the leader has left I know some colleagues and complaining about that but you know this is not a business statement or a business question and indeed I know colleagues are indicating from a sedentary position that they think it should be a business statement and I had anticipated that it would be an emergency business statement but it does not mean if it were a business statement or an emergency business statement the leader of Laos would obviously stay throughout the exchanges but it wasn't and he hasn't and colleagues must form their own view of that yes of course I'll come to mr. Stephen Doughty for not being the chamber I was watching on their television screens and I heard what you said about me to carefully consider this matter certainly only only became aware of this myself and just popping in to the table office and seemed that something had been thrown down by the government I mean quite an odd move and of course mr. speaker if they were trying again to put effectively the same question again is it not the case that they effectively therefore they are trying to avoid putting down the actual legislation as the Prime Minister indicated he was going to put down the actual withdrawal bill which of course is what many members in this house of all sides and all views on breaks that actually wish to see so they can adequately consider it the appropriate impact assessment - taken the committee's like the committee chaired by my honourable friends and from Leeds and can consider it but also so that men amendments to that bill itself can properly be considered and put down and and does it not strike you mr. speaker that's a very odd way in which to be proceeding given the clear will of the House expressed today on a very clear question from what he said whether the particular question that the government would be minded to table or indeed has attempted to table is exactly the same as that which was put today he's less clear the same question rule upon which I gave a ruling 2000 March the 18th this year holds but whether this is the same question is not so clear because the government would be wanting to put a proposition that was separate from the amendment in the name of the right honourable gentleman member for West Dorset however the apparent purpose of the said motion which ministers are attempting to table is to invalidate or obviate the effect of the decision that the house has reached today and that does seem most curious and irregular it is certainly to be expected that the government might seek to bring forward legislation as the Prime Minister himself indicated to the house he intended to do quite at what point I have as people will know being in the chair without interruption since 9:30 and I've not had conversations outside it occurred to somebody to suggest that a Moshi this motion would be tabled rather than legislation brought forward I can have no way because I have not been able to penetrate the inner recesses of ministerial Minds but I can only say that when I have reflected on this matter I will give a full ruling and I very very very politely reiterate that the government is not the arbiter of what is orderly that cannot be sir and it is not so and it will not be so and there can be no argument about that a point of order Jonathan Ashworth I'm extremely grateful mr. speaker you're being very patient with the house you will be aware that hitherto a regret motion to the gracious address had been tabled the namely the opposition and myself about the future of the National Health Service and seeking to exempt the National Health Service from a trade deal with the United States this regret motion has provoked considerable support in the country amongst NHS staff and patient groups many of whom were going through a lot of trouble to come to the house on Monday to lobby members of parliament ahead of that debate out of courtesy can you tell me I'll tell you the house what we should be telling to those NHS campaigners and whether or not they should come here on Monday because it looks like the government is running scared of a debate on the NHS [Applause] it's not for me to advise people on their travel plans but I do take very seriously what the shadow Secretary of State has just said on that extremely important matter about which not many thousands or tens of thousands but hundreds of thousands indeed millions of people feel very very strongly and it would be most unfortunate if people who may not have that regular in interaction with or cause to pay visits to the house intend to visit the house they are inconvenienced and disadvantaged with very little notice and without explanation let alone apology I cannot think that that conduces to the better reputation of the house and people have to make their own judgment about whether to come and the Honourable gentleman doubtless offer them his advice but I think I have given colleagues an indication of my unhappiness with the procedure that has been adopted by representatives of the executive branch and I will bear colleagues concerns in mind in ruling on this matter on Monday yes of course a point of order Sir Christopher choke mr. speaker do you think that this is an issue which should be referred to the procedure committee because it always used to be a convention that we had decent notice of the business that we were going to have that convention has been in a sense undermined by the practice which is more recent for example on a standing order 24 application the debate is taken immediately after there the application has been granted rather than on the following day which enables people to have notice so we've got some dangerous precedents that might I say of business being changed at very short notice to the detriment of members of this house and to members of the public who might want to come and attend our proceedings and might I suggest that if this was referred to the procedure committee then the procedure committee might be able to recommend some tightening of standing orders so that this sort of situation didn't arise again and can I while I while I'm on my feet just say that it looks as though for what what the leader of the house said on his point of order that emotion has been put down on Monday under Section A 1301 a B but that that most is not also going to be under Section 1 a 1 1 a of the 2019 Act and therefore the motion we were debating today covered two different acts and two different provisions but I understand that they motion down for debate on Monday is just on the 2018 Act therefore it would seem and I hope that you'll be able to consider this over the weekend it would seem that they cannot be regarded as being the same as the issue that we dealt with today so I hope that you'll be able to take those matters into account at mr. speaker the Honorable general the members of Christ Church I certainly will reflect on that point and the other points that he has made and I take his points in the constructive spirit in which he's made them and he speaks as someone who has been of course over a period I am Not sure currently and a distinguished ornament of the procedure committee and he's currently gracing the committee with his presence yes so if you put it in that way I am and I can say that I first had the privilege of joining the procedure committee back in 1984 when that procedure committee was graced with the presence of the right on that will he not Powell and many other distinguished members of this place I didn't know that I knew quite a lot of things about the Honorable gentleman the member of Christchurch I didn't know that but I am now better informed and so I recognized that his service on that committee dates back a long way I take very seriously what he says I accept the point that he makes about the unpredictability spawned by in my view justified decisions in relation to standing order number temple for applications for debates nevertheless it is a fact that that has inevitably produced a degree of unpredictability in the business the only point that I would make which i think is fair to make in this context is that where we are dealing with applications under standing order number 24 there is an established process provided for by the Standing Orders and it is understood by colleagues that an application can be heard only if the speaker agrees to hear it and can therefore proceed if the speaker hears and approves it only if the requisite threshold of support has been attained in the house by contrast in this particular case a representative of the executive is seeking to change the business not on the basis of a voted for proposition but on the basis of what some people might regard as an act of executive Fiat that does seem to me to put it in a somewhat different and perhaps inferior category well the appetite of colleagues is insatiable and I must say by the way at the moment the very best behaved person the very best behaved person here present is a very very very tiny person who seems blissfully unperturbed by our deliberations and I wish that splendid little person all the best point of order Tom break I apologize perhaps if you have already made this clear but is it your intention perhaps as the first piece of business on Monday to make a very clear statement about the process that we have just seen particularly if you consider it to be of a vexatious and repetitive nature and if if it is appropriate would you look very kindly on urgent questions on this subject because members have clearly expressed some very strong views about what the government have just done it certainly would be my intention to make a statement on the matter after questions after the ministerial question time in other words at all very close to 3:30 it seems to me to be a matter of genuine urgency and therefore it would be right to have a decision on the matter communicated to the house before the house might treat of other questions or statements and certainly before the commencement of public business point of order mrs. Miriam fellows Thank You mr. speaker I'll be brief can you get me some guidance and how best I could register my disgust and disapproval of the behavior of the leader of the house when he walks out as my right my honourable friend the member for Glasgow North was trying to respond to a point of order made by the leader of those this continues on for the behavior of members opposite who had every opportunity every opportunity barked and shout down my trip leader the Honourable member for Ross Skye and Lochaber this should not be allowed to continue mr. speaker and I'd like to know what I can do to help it stop ill normal lady is invariably a helpful member of our flock in relation to these matters because she's a model of good behavior and if her example were emulated across the house our proceedings would be altogether more seemly and her stock is high so far as the leader is concerned you know colleagues have said what they've said and I've said what I've said I think it is very important that we respect each other and part of respecting each other must be hearing each other so far as her leader is concerned and I didn't intervene I think on a number of occasions to indicate that the right honourable gentleman must be heard I don't say this in any pejorative spirit to the honourable lady my only caveat if you will is that the right honourable gentleman the member for Ross Skye and Lochaber is well able to look after himself moreover there are colleagues who feel that the Honourable gentleman has a rhombic giuse style which is sometimes almost calculated to inflame colleagues who disagree with him and therefore even if inadvertently yes as the minister says resented musician and therefore to some extent you know he has to some extent he has to cope with that which his style invites but only to some extent and it is important that he be heard and I hope the honor lady is happy to trust the chair to protect him if he needs to be protected and the point of order Catherine West could you clarify whether it would be in order for the leader of the house to apologize to backbench members who not only were expecting an explanation of some sort as to the following the Proceedings of today but also for those who have prepared speeches for the Queen's speech and looking forward to giving those features and perhaps even polishing them as we speak and not able to do that on Monday you know how to do that if he so chose he's not in the chamber now and so even if he were minded to do so he may not feel so inclined and he could not do so at this moment but the right honourable gentleman will doubtless be back in his place on Monday as I'm sure the honorable lady will be in hers and further exchanges on that matter and others can take place a point of order Susan Ellen James mr. speaker when the leader of the house was not making his business statement earlier we have no suggestion as to timings of anything that might happen in Monday's sittings now we presume that the house will commence at 2:30 on Monday but we have no idea of this as we're sitting today on a Saturday well so we are just presuming a lot of things and being left in the dark by a government quite frankly whose leader of the house is not sufficiently courteous to make a business statement can you please clarify mr. speaker on the timings that we will be expecting on Monday the answer to the Honourable lady is that I can assure her we will be meeting at 2:30 on Monday afternoon we have had a business statement on the business for next week that business statement I say as much for people attending to our proceedings to whom they should be intelligible as well as to the members of the house that is the states of square that is the given position we will meet on Monday at 2:30 in the afternoon is governed by standing order number nine the government may well plan to do an emergency business statement on Monday but it cannot change the start time on Monday and there are very good reasons I must say to the house and to people observing our proceedings why there cannot be an arbitrary change in the timetable it is really for the protection of the house if it were possible for the sitting time to be arbitrarily changed at the whim of the executive that would be deeply injurious to the rights of individual members and look for the house as an institution that cannot happen and believe me it will not happen now point of order just in grieving grateful mr. speaker I really wanted to register my own concern about effectively the debate were now having when most members of this house felt that business had already finished and of course on a Saturday had arranged to get back to their families and another it's very clear to me that the government would have known that today's vote could only have had two outcomes either was going to succeed or fail and thus there was no reason to not be transparent about what its intentions might be on the following sitting day that it would have to then proceed according to the outcome of the debate today and I really do feel that we have spent a year now having a government or a previous government and now this government unfortunately trying to seek to override votes here and only today the Prime Minister said partner should be at the heart of decision making I acknowledge it in the past we've not always acted in that spirit I simply wanted to reflect reflect Mr Speaker that this has got to stop this house cannot do its job if we have plans and debates sprung on us at the last minute all we seek to do is scrutinize on on behalf of our constituents and represent their concerns and play our role in trying to help make any brexit deal the best possible deal that it can become and this is simply not the way for this house to be running and I do hope you can reflect on members concerns as you reach a ruling I certainly will reflect on members concerns I say to the right honourable lady colleagues will understand that the speaker regularly meets the leader of the House and the shadow a leader of the House and the government chief Webb from the opposition Chief Whip and a number of others who occupy influential positions in the House and that is absolutely right it facilitates the efficient and orderly and fair conduct of business it is important also of course that many of those discussions not necessarily all of them but many of them are private in character and so I wouldn't make a habit of divulging the detail of what has been discussed I think it is fair however to say that I did see the leader of the House earlier this week we had a perfectly good and constructive meeting in which we discussed a number of matters I hope in our usual fashion that is to say with great respect and foreign courtesy towards each it was perfectly possible to anticipate as the right honourable lady said a number of scenarios that might flow later in the week with the upcoming European Council and the deadline for the passage of a deal but the leader of the house certainly in that meeting earlier this week gave me no indication of any what might be called reserved plans in the event that things didn't proceed as he hoped so I just want the house to know that I have been blindsided on this matter as others have been and I would that it had not been so I expressed myself I hope in quite an understated fashion I would that she had not been so and rather than pronounced with sound and fury now which I don't think would be the right thing to do I will reflect on the matter absorbing what colleagues are saying consulting others for their advice and reporting to the House on Monday I am extremely grateful to the right honourable lady isn't it immensely dedicated parliamentarian and in who has served if you will on both sides of the fence both as a senior minister and indeed as a back bench member a point of order mr. Kevin Brennan immensely grateful mr. Allen and further to my earlier point of order which you kindly ruled was in order that this matter should have been dealt with through an emergency business statement I think we all recognize if we've been here long enough in this house that low-rent jiggery-pokery from the government which is what this actually amounts to although I understand that's not something you could say mr. speaker but if it were the case if it were the case and I noticed your head movements mr. speaker but it's not my duty to comment on people's head movements in his house but if it were the case that the right honourable member for West Dorset was seeking to put down what you might call an insurance amendments ahead of Monday's proceedings just in case a ruling should occur that allowed the government to proceed as it suggested through the rather irregular point of order from the leader of the House earlier and that amendment that insurance amendment was not tabled by the time we finished this current session points of order this afternoon that you would be minded overall to accept such an amendment as a manuscript amendment prior to our proceedings on Monday should that be the ruling by noon any manuscript amendments would be eligible for consideration then I would have to see the amendment before deciding whether to select it but such an amendment I hope this reassures the honourable gentleman would be in no different or lesser category to the other manuscript amendments to which one of his colleagues referred earlier it would be perfectly possible for those to be decided upon and therefore if appropriate selected by the chair I hope that that's helpful to the Honorable gentleman the point of order case to blacken I'm wondering if you've had any indication from the government about whether or not they intend to undertake and publish an economic impact analysis on the brexit deal in advance of bringing it to us again on Monday forgive me I'd like yeah I heard the Honourable lady referred to an economic impact analysis I didn't quite understand her I didn't quite hear her question give me the brexit sexually this morning confirmed that the government has not undertaken an egg impact analysis on the Prime Minister's deal and therefore has not published it I'm wondering if you've had any notice mr. speaker about whether or not they intend to undertake and publish that analysis in advance of Monday if they've now got a few extra days before they bring that back to us I've had no such indication at all I mean hope springs eternal as far as the Honourable lady is concerned and it is possible that gray cells are being applied to this matter that there are hot wet towels over departmental officials heads as they beaver away and burn the midnight oil tonight and tomorrow night in the construction of such an analysis but concerned as I am for the well-being of the Honourable lady I would say to her that on the evidence so far I wouldn't advise her to hold her breath for any length of time their point of order mr. Steven Doherty Thank You mr. speaker on a separate point of order and I welcome the remarks you made already in response to the other points but I wondered if you could say whether you knew how we will know whether or not the government has sent the letter to the European Council to comply with the terms of the he was right number two by eleven o'clock tonight because I wondered whether late indicates where they're gonna lay in the library or put a copy on the government dot uk' websites or otherwise and because otherwise Mr Speaker we could be in the dark until Monday as to whether this has even happened and given the jiggery-pokery as has been described that is going on no doubt they would seek to hide from us whether or not this letter has in fact been sent as required by the law well there's no requirement for it to be laid I don't think there's any even from memory of the legislation there's no legal requirement for it to be laid or for it to appear in the library of the house so I can't offer the Honourable gentleman any great comfort on that point knowing the indefatigable 'ti of the honourable gentleman I rather imagine that he will be pursuing this matter with considerable intensity over the next 24 hours or so and possibly from most of those 24 hours allowing himself a couple of hours here and there for sleep perhaps and so I'm sure he will be making his own inquiries to try to ascertain whether the letter has been delivered and I I dare say representatives of the Fourth Estate may be making such inquiries as well so I imagine enlightenment will descend upon us at such some point and I'm I'm quite sure by the time we sit on Monday we'll know the answer to his question and I expect him at that point to be in his place avoid water miss meat which I think they're just so much distrust about the Prime Minister and the saving of the sweat out of it can I suggest maybe through good offices if this is done as publicly as possible now there's a popular TV program on tonight called Strictly Come Dancing and I'm pretty certain that tests and cloudier would welcome the prime minister to attend and order that pet letter could be safe so the whole nation could observe well it's not for me to advise the prime minister on either his viewing habits or his attendance at popular television programs and I'm certainly not aware the Prime Minister's got any plans to take part in that particular program in advancing capacity I'm not conscious about it it's not something here and I've ever discussed but I make the point that he a little gentle has made the wider point is about transparency the wider point he's making is about transparency and I agree that it is absolutely right and proper that we should know what action has been taken on this matter but I do feel that colleagues will take their own steps to try to ascertain what happens over the next 24 hours or so if there are I did seek to constrain colleagues in any way but I have a sense that some colleagues may wish to bring our proceedings to a conclusion if they're very good to see the sector State for Northern Ireland in the chamber albeit sitting in the second row which is the coming ly modest of the right honorable gentleman he could perfectly well be stride the Treasury bench if he was so minded he's an understated fellow if there are no further points of order we have to leave matters there for now I suggest that we come now to the adjournment were to move that this house do now adjourn thank you the question is that this house do now adjourn as many as a little couldn't say I love the country now I think the eyes have it the eyes have it order order

Channel: Washington Post

Views: 85,429

Keywords: uk, brexit, brexit-party-meps, breaking news video, video updates, live video, live updates, breaking news, press conference, live speeches, real time coverage

Id: HADFvabpWEU

Length: 204min 0sec (12240 seconds)

Published: Sat Oct 19 2019