Skip to main content

tv   BBC News at Five  BBC News  January 14, 2019 5:00pm-6:00pm GMT

5:00 pm
of this house to vote for what i believe is a good deal. i have been hearing from members across all of the house in relation to this particular issue. i will continue to believe this is a good deal because it delivers on the referendum and it is crucial that this house delivers on the referendum but it also does so on the referendum but it also does so in on the referendum but it also does soina on the referendum but it also does so in a way that protects people's jobs and securities, and gives certainty to businesses and that is why i believe it is a good deal. no one is ever going to get what they wa nt one is ever going to get what they want in the negotiations but the very simple fact is that all the leaders of our major industries including rolls—royce and to utah is that this deal is the right deal for them to continue employing people in this country. is that not one of the most important decisions to change right in trying to protect manufacturing jobs and our country's future? my right honourable friend
5:01 pm
is absolutely right and i would say to him it isjust leaders of men about showing industry. he is right, they have made clear this is a good deal and a deal that should be supported but others have said to. we have seen scottish fishermen, farmers, so think this is a deal that should be supported and went members of the house think about the jobs of their constituents it is important they remember about.|j jobs of their constituents it is important they remember about. i am going to come hotfoot from her speech in stoke when she commanded us speech in stoke when she commanded us to honour the results of the referendum, yet in 1997 she voted against legislation to establish the national assembly of wales and into those in five stood on the manifesto calling for another referendum or the option to overturn the result. how does the prime minister square her personal track record on referendums with such commands? the
5:02 pm
conservative party, of course it went into opposition in 1997, we accepted the result of the referendum vote in wales. we accepted, respected and make clear at the time we respected the result of that referendum in wales and i think anybody who can see the welsh assembly today and what it has been doing over recent years but recommends that is the right decision. might i commend my right honourable friend by listening to the concerns of honourable members and for seeking to obtain further concessions and clarifications from the european union but is it not the case that the use of those words by jean—claude juncker and donald tusk that we are not in a position to change anything with withdrawal agreement that simply underlying
5:03 pm
those concerns and make it all the more unlikely that they will reject the agreement tomorrow? the concerns that members that overwhelmingly raised was the issue of whether the backstop could continue indefinitely. european union within the withdrawal agreement in a number of ways makes clear that the backstop can only be a temporary arrangement. they have given that further assurance in relation to this in conclusions which have legal force in international law and that has been confirmed in the uk. they have gone further than they did within the withdrawal agreement but certainly house on many occasion there is no deal with european union that does not involve a withdrawal agreement. there is no deal that does not involve having a backstop as that commitment to the people of northern ireland, there will be no ha rd northern ireland, there will be no hard border between northern ireland and ireland. the prime ministers that this morning she called on everyone to move beyond division and
5:04 pm
come together. does she not recognise that she has made the divisions worse and made it harder for people to come together by not consulting either parliament or the public or her red lines or the negotiating objectives and by ducking and delaying votes? does she not recognise that brinkmanship is the worst possible way to make such existence with future of our country and must retell the house now that she has not ruled out extending article 50 if her plan is rejected tomorrow? i have said on many occasions in this house i have come regularly to this house and answered questions from honourable members about the position the government has been taking on this particular matters and i am clear, in fact it is in legislation, that we should leave the european union on the 29th of march this year. will my right
5:05 pm
honourable friend the prime minister reconfirm to the house that would ever future trade relationship the united kingdom wishes to have with the european union that this withdrawal agreement is clearly absolutely necessary to secure it? here is that we write. there are two issues here. how we lead the european union and what our future relationship is and any trade agreement that we would need or wish to agree with the european union will require us to have those details of the withdrawal agreement agreed and as i said previously, any withdrawal agreement will include a backstop. looking for a newly young member. that you mr speaker. can i ask the prime minister go back to the good question asked by her colleague the right honourable memberfor colleague the right honourable member for rushcliffe, when he made
5:06 pm
a very intelligent plea for more time. this is one of the most important decisions that we will make in the last 100 years. why should we rush it? it is camp lacks -- it is should we rush it? it is camp lacks —— it is complex. we need more time, why can't we have it? it will be march 29 of the year, missed three yea rs march 29 of the year, missed three years since people voted for us to read the european union. this house voted overwhelmingly to trickle article 50 in the knowledge that article 50 in the knowledge that article 50 in the knowledge that article 50 had a set time for the process and that meant we would be leaving on a particular date. the withdrawal agreement is of course a d raft withdrawal agreement is of course a draft international treaty and if we we re draft international treaty and if we were to vote for it tomorrow and then ratify it, it would be winding upon us in international law. so it
5:07 pm
would outrank legally any motion or amendment of this house, or even an act of parliament, and the agreement says that it self. it confirms it in black—and—white in article four on page 11. so the question is, do these letters have any legal power over the treaty? the prime minister coated for the attorney general 's advice, the operative paragraphs to. chic quoted selectively, if you will forgive me. paragraph which is brief reads, i agree forgive me. paragraph which is brief reads, iagree in forgive me. paragraph which is brief reads, i agree in the light of this response the council's conclusions of the 13th of september 20 18th would have legal force in international law and thos be releva nt international law and thos be relevant and recognisable in that interpretation of the withdrawal
5:08 pm
agreement and in particular the northern ireland protocols. albeit they do not alter the fundamental meanings of its provisions as i advised them to be on the 13th of november, 2018. in other words the letters do not overrule the treaty. they are the big leaf and a small one at that. is that not true? these are additional to the text in the treaty and they do have force in international law but i would say to my right honourable friend i was clear in my statement and i have said that since, i recognise that what we have from the european union does not go as far as the members of this house would like it to go and would prefer it to go. we do have those further assurances which would the ansett alongside the withdrawal agreement —— sit alongside the withdrawal agreement and any
5:09 pm
question of the backstop being challenged, these would be part of that consideration and has been said, they do have a force in international law. just to be clear oi'i international law. just to be clear on the prime minister's strategy she is asking her to trust her to agree to get asked exit day before we start to beat negotiate. —— before we agree to negotiate the whole of the uk. does she not realise this would be a massive lead in the dark byes who would be her successor concluding those negotiations? the political declaration sets out the instructions to the negotiators for the next stage in relation to the trade village meant —— trade arrangements but also the security arrangements but also the security arrangements and the issues underpinning these, including questions of data exchange so those are the instructions which the
5:10 pm
negotiators for the next stage will be working on to change into legal text. it is not possible for the eu to agree with a legally binding text with the trade agreement with a country that is a member of the european union. they have to wait until we are third country and outside the european union. the prime minister would have read the comments from leading eu officials about the withdrawal agreement since it was finalised. michel barnier's deputy said this requires the customs union for the basis of a future relationship. she said they must align their rules of the eu will retain all the controls and finally that the eu retains its leveraged. the general secretary of the commission has said the power is with us and he told on the 7th of
5:11 pm
december the agreement shows that leaving the eu does not work. russells clearly believe it's a great deal but them, why does the prime minister seemingly as enthusiastic that this is a great deal for the united kingdom? enthusiastic that this is a great dealfor the united kingdom? can i say that what is clear in the letters we have received to date from the european union is that the issues that form, i know a number of members were concerned about the physiology that was in the political vaccination about the customs, and the phraseology of building on protocol, and therefore the assumption of what was in the protocol would have to be taken into the future relationship. in fact the letters we have received to date mclear it is not the case and i say to my right honourable friend he asks why i believe this is a good deal? i believe it is a good deal because it does deliver on the vote of the referendum, control of money, borders and laws, but it also
5:12 pm
enables us to have an independent trade policy but it also enables us to do that in a way that protects jobs and security and give certainty to businesses. i genuinely respect the prime minister's willingness to come back time after time to talk to this parliament and to the public about her deal even if to date she has not really brought anything different back if we are honest. could i ask you to state very clearly, this parliament voted to give the people the opportunity to decide whether to leave or not to leave, not with this parliament to decide. was you therefore categorically state that whatever happens tomorrow night and in the next few weeks, we will be reading oi'i next few weeks, we will be reading on march the 29th because that is what the people voted for? we will be leaving the european union on march the 29th. i believe it is important that this parliament delivers on the vote that people
5:13 pm
took in 2016 and indeed, as i have just said, in response to one of honourable friends, this parliament voted to trickle article 50 with that to tame —— two—year timeframe. it is important for the sake of our democracy that we do deliver on the brexit vote that it plays in 2016. in wakefield in saturday a man approached me to say that on the day the prime minister delayed about his business lost a multi—million pound contract and as a result his order book was empty and redundancies were i'iow book was empty and redundancies were now starting, so her delay has achieved nothing apart from the paradox of leaving her a little bit fever in hera paradox of leaving her a little bit fever in her a little bit safer in herjob, but my constituents quite a lot less safe in herjob. when her
5:14 pm
deal is voted down wilshire extend article 50 work across this house to give our constituents the option to vote again on what they now know is going to happen which is continued uncertainty on the trading relationship to be their businesses and the eu for at least the next four years byes? business is that su btly clear four years byes? business is that subtly clear that the certainty they require is a certainty be will be given by agreeing the steel. to guarantee brexit she should... cani can ijust can i just say to my can ijust say to my right honourable friend he is trying to tempt me down a road and i will not go down at. was parliament delayed i would be denied the opportunity to see my right honourable friend and
5:15 pm
a nswer see my right honourable friend and answer his questions on iraq the basis and that would be very sad. budge to answer his questions on a regular basis. the prime minister has tried her best but that she not acce pt has tried her best but that she not accept that everything she has said today does not alter the fact that she has no majority in this parliament, no authority in the country, and her government now serves no useful purpose? can i say to the right honourable gentleman that yes, the government is getting on with what we believe is right in putting a deal tourist this parliament to deliver on exit and to deliver for the british parliament to deliver on exit and to deliverfor the british people but can it also say this is not the only thing this government has been involved with. i hope you would recognise the importance of a long—term plan for the national health service and the significant investment on the national health service which is government has agreed to put in. in her statement
5:16 pm
my right honourable friend points out that the eu will not agree to an end date to the backstop or eight unilateral exit mechanism. does that make her doubt unilateral exit mechanism. does that make herdoubt their unilateral exit mechanism. does that make her doubt their sincerity when they say they do not really want the backstop? the concerned that the european union has about those two options are, as i said in my statement, that somehow the united kingdom would try to engineer a situation where it would pull out and there was a hard border between northern ireland and ireland. they wa nt to northern ireland and ireland. they want to guarantee there would be no such hard border. i said the european union, northern ireland as pa rt european union, northern ireland as part of the united kingdom. we want to guarantee that commitment to the people of northern ireland and it is important because they are part of the inn kingdom. the european union has been clear that in every circumstance, whatever the trade agreement negotiated in the future,
5:17 pm
oi’ agreement negotiated in the future, or that —— whatever the agreements, the backstop would be part of that. we can ensure that the backstop is never needed or if it was to be needed it was temporary. it is getting that future relationship in place which will enable us to maintain that long terms the ability to the people of ireland. is bite of what we have heard from the prime minister if you minutes ago the prime minister was one of hundred and 44 tory mps who voted against the foundation of the welsh assembly in 1999. that was 18 months after the referendum result. why was it a cce pta ble the referendum result. why was it acceptable for her to do that then but conversely rolling out today the opportunity for this country, including 2 million young people who do not have a say back in 2016, to have that people's vote on the actual terms of the withdrawal agreement? i didn't answer the
5:18 pm
specific point about young people when my right honourable friend raise that question so i would like to address it now. i reckon as there are people today who are now eligible to vote who were not eligible to vote who were not eligible to vote in 2016, but i have to say to those members who say that isa to say to those members who say that is a reason for having a second vote, actually regardless of how that vote went, people could see in two yea rs' that vote went, people could see in two years' time there is another group of young people who should be voting and therefore, we should have another vote. parliament was clear. the decision of 2016 was a decision that would be delivered. tempting as it is to set up international law by talking about vic reeves could be prime minister confirmed to me that the status of the letters today is legally binding if we were to have
5:19 pm
an arbitration under international law in the future byes? yes, and i am happy to respond to my honourable friend who has more experience than ido friend who has more experience than i do with her legal experience. it is right, they do have that legal force. they would be taken into account looking at any arbitration or dispute that arose, that is part of the consideration to be taken into account so they do have that legal force. can i gently into account so they do have that legalforce. can i gently say into account so they do have that legal force. can i gently say to the prime minister that whatever our views in brexit across this house, we are all patriots and it is not subversive to take a different view from the prime minister, it is simply democracy. it is not subversive because otherwise the position of the conservative party after the welsh double nation would be subversive. it would be a different point of view. i am proud
5:20 pm
the welsh assembly are here. she was not successful in her golfer another referendum because support from the but support for brexit has fallen which is night we need to did back to the people. i do not accept the underlying premise of the honourable gentleman's premise. there are indeed people who said the voted leave but would now vote to remain. there are also people who voted remain who would now vote to leave the european union and that is... the overwhelming view i get when i knock on doors and different people directly is actually they just want the government to get on with the job that people gave to the government of leaving the eu. this is our coverage of the statement of the prime minister in the house of commons on the eve of the big exit
5:21 pm
vote in the commons. this is me has urged mps to back her deal or to risk brexit not happening at all. she has been warning of paralysis in parliament if the deal is rejected. she said trust in politics would suffer catastrophic harm in the uk did not leave the eu. the prime minister has welcomed new eu assurances over the impact of the deal northern ireland. this is crucial. saying that those reassu ra nces crucial. saying that those reassurances had legal force. crucial. saying that those reassurances had legalforce. she is just repeated that again and that the so—called backstop would only apply for the shortest possible period, if indeed it was required. a quick reminder that the backstop is the guarantee to avoid any return to border checks between northern ireland and the republic if there is no trade deal in place. there was a setback for the prime minister after one of the government whips gareth johnson resigned, saying the deal would be detrimental to the nation's
5:22 pm
interest, adding to a list of people in government who have resigned because of their opposition to the deal. this is me is really trying ha rd deal. this is me is really trying hard today, began the day by a factor workers in stoke are now of course, back in westminster answering lots of questions from mps on the precise nature of the assurances that she has now secured from the european union. it is a crucial stage, the stakes are high because this time tomorrow we'll be edging towards the moment when mps will vote on the deal that mrs may have constructed. the signs are that she will not get that deals through but as we say, let us not take anything for granted until the actual vote happens. we can say with confidence the stakes are incredibly high because if that brexit deal does not happen there will be possibly an exit with no deal,
5:23 pm
possibly an exit with no deal, possibly looking at other options, so it really is an important juncture. and our chief political correspondent vicki young has been following things in parliament for us. you be looking at notjust the statement today but an earlier statement. do you detect in parliament that things are moving her away or not? i would say there isa her away or not? i would say there is a trickle of support going her way but at the moment it is nowhere near enough and i think part of the problem is that everyone here and she is going to be defeated. it is simplya she is going to be defeated. it is simply a matter of by how much and if that is what everyone is thinking it does not encourage those who have doubts about the deal to put those doubts about the deal to put those doubts to one side and put the neck on the line and vote for it. that goes with some labour mps i've spoken to as well who might be willing to support her but they will not if they think she is going to be defeated anyway. this is an appeal to mps and she is trying to make them focus on what the choices are. this idea that if the ball down her
5:24 pm
deal, they will get what they want and pointing out to them that can not be the case for everybody. as she said in the house of commons just now, look at the option of a no deal. it would mean no implementation period, no guarantees, no security partnership for uk citizens abroad. if there we re for uk citizens abroad. if there were attempts to block brexit altogether that would undermine peoples faith in democracy. she said to mp this is a compromise, it is not perfect. she as things are a you are not enough to convince everyone on her own side but she is saying to them clearly, please take a second look at the deal. over these next 24 hours skip this deal a second look. no, it is not perfect and yes it is a cover mice but won the history books are written people... people
5:25 pm
will look at the decision of this house tomorrow and ask did we deliver on the country's vote to leave the european union? did we safeguard our economy, our security ordid we safeguard our economy, our security or did we let the british people down? i say we should deliver for the british people and get on with building a brighter future for our country by backing this deal tomorrow. where is the labour leader in all of this? jeremy corbyn has been repeating his cough or a general collection. it is hard for him to achieve that. there is a lot of speculation about when he would call a vote of no—confidence in the prime minister. he did not see a be immediately just soon. prime minister. he did not see a be immediatelyjust soon. is trying to choose the time he thinks of the most likely to topple the prime minister. but at the moment the dup are still telling me they have no
5:26 pm
reason to vote against the government if it came to a no—confidence vote that he says he and its party are very clearly against the deal on the table. i'm sure members across the house will not be what is being produced today. it is clear what we are voting on this week is exactly the same deal we should have voted on in december. i'm sure the prime minister knows this, that is why today she is trying to blame others for this chaos. given the lack of support for the prime minister's deal you might have thought she would try to reach out to mps. is that the prime minister is claiming by failing to support a botched deal members are threatening to undermine the faith of the british people in our democracy. the only people who are undermining faith in our democracy is the government itself. mr speaker, i can think of no greater
5:27 pm
example of democracy in action than this house to reject a deal that is clearly ha rd for this house to reject a deal that is clearly hard for this country. as we have heard of a weeks there are all sorts of different groups of mps from different parties working together, working on their particular version of plan b. some of those are pushing for another referendum, something jeremy corbyn is clearly very reluctant to do. generally there is a feeling among some that mps, if parliament is gridlocked, if theresa may cannot come forward with something that can get through the house of commons, the mps themselves will have to come up the mps themselves will have to come up with something they have to coalesce around. these were the thoughts of ed miliband. coalesce around. these were the thoughts of ed milibandlj coalesce around. these were the thoughts of ed miliband. i say to her in the strongest terms be torn and substance she eventually makes world define her in this country. i wa nt world define her in this country. i want to urge to her not to succumb to this absurd argument that this is
5:28 pm
a war between this house and this government by the government is the servant of this house. i want her to —— iwant servant of this house. i want her to —— i want overture that if she loses tomorrow night, gives this house a open and honest process where she can “— open and honest process where she can —— it can express its new edgy and the government become a servant of this house. theresa may shot back that actually the current is the servant of the people in all of this. it is interesting listening to the message coming from theresa may, she is bogus on the brexiteers in our own party saying that some of the moves in parliament could threaten brexit altogether and we've had four orfive threaten brexit altogether and we've had four or five conservative mps think are genuinely fearful that it might not happen at all so they are willing to back this deal even though they think it is pretty flawed. the question is how many others are willing to follow them and backed the government to moral? —— tomorrow. and backed the government to moral? -- tomorrow. thank you. it we go
5:29 pm
back to the statement the prime minister made in stoke today, it is all to do with the assurances she gets in the european union in all to do with that future of the border between northern ireland and the republic. in the event of no trade deal, that border was still be fully open. this is a crucial part of the debate and indeed we can probably talk a little bit more about the nature of the assurances if we go to russell ‘s top to our european correspondence. just help of with what exactly the european union has been able to deliver which did not deliver before christmas? theresa may pointed to a fused things in this letter that she has released today, one she talked about the legal clarity or extra legal reassurance. this isn't the legal
5:30 pm
assurances that brexiteer is wanted, that the uk would have an exit from these provisions about northern ireland. she has the eu saying that the word of the eu leaders are that they will try to find a trade deal quickly and it is not their intention to trap the uk in the backstop, that has legal weight because it is the word of the eu's leaders, that's something but not enough, it hasn't gone down well with the democratic unionists in northern ireland. she talked about the fact the eu is promising to move swiftly, as soon as parliament a pproves swiftly, as soon as parliament approves a deal the eu would move straight on to talking about a trade deal and implement it as quickly as
5:31 pm
possible, so again to obviate the need for a backstop, that is small pickings, but really the letter says that the eu cannot make changes and will not make changes to the negotiated text of the treaty now being put before parliament, so they will not entertain that, but they will not entertain that, but they will try to offer reassurances at this stage. thank you, damien traumatic us, our europe correspondent. back at westminster, let's talk about the way the prime minister tried to get people on her own side behind this deal because there are dozens of conservative mps who are not convinced by the shape and credibility and validity of the deal the prime minister has put together. with me now is the conservative mp crispin blunt. thank you forjoining us. she
5:32 pm
reached out to date and made a case, did it convince you? i'm afraid the withdrawal agreement terms are not even close to what is best for the uk. businesses are saying to me they need certainty, if we don't know what minute terms of trade are on the 29th of march, we don't have that certain day. with the eu and ourselves could sign up for zero ta riffs ourselves could sign up for zero tariffs straightaway, that would end the bulk of economic and administrative impact of leaving the eu and you wouldn't do away with two yea rs of eu and you wouldn't do away with two years of transition, possibly extended by another two years, then into this customs arrangement backstop for which the eu will decide if the uk has done enough. six years of uncertainty set against a definitive result when we know what the terms of trade are and
5:33 pm
after tomorrow we can then see that after tomorrow we can then see that a lot of the nonsense around economic armageddon, the unacceptability of no deal, crashing out of the eu will be seen as nonsense. we spent £4.2 billion getting ready for this, we can now getting ready for this, we can now get on and prepare and deliver less and that will be a better place for the eu to beat them in this endless uncertain arrangement and the fundamental position did not changed today. so the prime minister was wasting her breasts today? she's trying to make the case for her withdrawal agreement, some things in that secure the rights for uk citizens in europe and that is welcome but there are things of concern and notjust the backstop. we saw sir richard dearlove and field marshal lord guthrie making clear the concerns around the fence
5:34 pm
and our security arrangements with nato and intelligence sharing, and i share some of those concerns, and we will be in a better place if we still have our £39 billion in our pocket, to then decide how to spend that money to best support our future relationship with the eu. if the eu make conditions difficult for us, the first call for that money should be british businesses affected by the transition, but why would they be? they sell twice as much to us as we sell to them. it is in doubt into to conduct the agreements they will have to have to make the transition work in march and then we need to get engaged in the future partnership and that was
5:35 pm
missing through the whole negotiation, setting out a stall for the future relationship between the uk and the eu, we got quickly mired in this wretched withdrawal agreement and never got on to the future. the vote will take place tomorrow. it's fair to summarise the view of lots of your colleagues who seemed to say there is no majority in the house of commons for the kind of conclusion you want, so where does that leave us? parliament has passed the laws for us to leave the eu on the 29th of march, that will happen and from tomorrow, once the withdrawal agreement is almost certainly defeated, then we will expose what is happening because people have been trying to support the withdrawal agreement as opposed to leaving with no agreement but they will not have a case to make
5:36 pm
and we will see that the remaining case, those people who have been supporting the withdrawal agreement, have been proposing a fiction around what leaving with no agreement means, and that has been exposed on air travel and freight and pharmaceuticals, it will continue to be exposed in every area. they say your view about a smooth economic conclusion is also a perfection. it's not. we are going to negotiate a future free—trade agreement. if you do that under wto rules you can move immediately to zero tariffs. why would we impose a paris system when we both have a reason not to the eu sells twice as much to us as we sell to them so it will there businesses spending twice as much in tariff income to the uk as us, so why have we are prepared to give
5:37 pm
tariff—free option to the eu, why wouldn't they take it? crispin blunt, good to talk to you. when that vote takes place tomorrow, we will get more reaction to the options if, and it is a big if, if the prime minister loses the vote because it's the house of commons and brexit, it's an uncertain place to be. talking about predictions, louise, what is the weather doing? my louise, what is the weather doing? my showers much breezier at the moment, it's been a quiet start to the year, cloudy and mild but things will change this week. for now we keep that relatively straightforward story, so a lot of cloud spilling in from the atlantic, this weather front will bring much, quite a lot
5:38 pm
of cloud around on tuesday morning across the country, we will be chasing some breaks and sunny spells so we start off tuesday relatively quiet, overnight lows of three degrees. some of that rain will be quite heavy in the north west and will bring bits and pieces are showery rain across scotland and northern ireland, further south it will be mild, temperatures likely to peak at 11 degrees but getting colder as we go through the week. back here at westminster, we will talk more about the statement the prime minister is making today, one in the house of commons that mps are still asking questions about right now, but before that, let's catch up with old today's sports news and join sarah. thank you, let's talk tennis.
5:39 pm
well, we saw flashes of the old murray this morning, roaring back from two sets down with all the pain in his hip, before losing in five sets to roberto bautista agut in the first round at the australian open. now its decision time. he knows that he needs more surgery for long—term quality of life, but does he delay that for one last hurrah at wimbledon this summer? it is difficult because i always wa nted it is difficult because i always wanted to finish playing at wimbledon, if tonight was my last match that would be a great way to finish, it was a really good match against a quality opponent. but then there is a bit of meat that, i love playing, i want to keep playing tennis but i cannot do it with the help i have enough so the only option if i want to do that is to have the surgery but i know there's a strong possibility that i won't be able to get back after that but it's
5:40 pm
my only option if i want to play again for longer than one event at wimbledon, so that's the decision i have to make. the british number one kyle edmund is also out. he reached the semi—finals in australia last year and was seeded 13th but he lost in straight sets to the former world number four thomas berdych. dan evans is through after a straight sets win over japan's tatsuma ito — his first win in the main draw of a grand slam for two years. he's going to face roger federer next, though. katie boulter claimed one of the best wins of her career, knocking out ekatarina makarova in three sets and taking the decider on a tie—break — the first woman to do so under the new australian open rules. but other british players heather watson, harriet dart and cameron norrie are all out. we'll have more for you in sportsday at 6:30pm. but now back to westminster. thank you, sarah. we are still in
5:41 pm
the midst of the statement by the prime minister, we can summarise it in this way, the prime minister saying to her colleagues who are not on side, i've got more reassurances from the eu on the future of the northern ireland border with the republic, we are legally enforcea ble, republic, we are legally enforceable, she has insisted on that despite sceptical looks and questions on that point and she hopes that will convert more people to her case because this time tomorrow we will be within an hour or so of that vote on the agreement, so that stakes are high and the prime minister making that appealed to mp5. we're nowjoined by the conservative mp nick boles, part of a group of mps arguing for greater parliamentary scrutiny of the brexit process , parliamentary scrutiny of the brexit process, especially looking ahead to
5:42 pm
tomorrow, if the prime minister loses the vote. am i right in summarising that you are in favour ofa summarising that you are in favour of a senior parliamentary committee in effect taking charge of this process is no resolution is possible through the house itself? that's right but i will vote for the prime minister's deal and i think the best outcome would be for her to be able to negotiate a compromise deal, whether it's the one being put tomorrow or in the weeks that follow, that parliament supports, but we need to leave the eu on the 29th of march with a deal and that the government cannot deliver that, parliament needs to take over. what would be the plus and what would be the advantage of handing control of that process to this committee? lots of viewers will be confused by the notion that a committee of the house could handle this. my greatest
5:43 pm
criticism of the government and of the prime minister is that she has not recognised that this is a hung parliament, she does not have a majority and there are a range of views on brexit across the house and she has never invited the other parties in to discuss where compromise might like, and i've been doing, and the number of other people, i've been having those conversations over the last human is and it's clear that there is potential for a compromise deal, it's not the deal she has proposed, some of its aspect she might not like but it's a deal we could get from the eu, they have said they would agree to work and we could get a majority in the house of commons and i'm frustrated, for all that i will support the prime minister, i'm frustrated that she has not done this and if she is not willing or
5:44 pm
able to do it, parliament needs to do it. your colleague crispin blunt said forcefully that a no deal scenario is not a disaster and we just need to face the fact that if it happens, there will be a fairly smooth transition. i'm paraphrasing. why do you think so many of your colleagues, it seems, still have that view because they clearly think the prime minister has it wrong? it's pie in the sky, i wish i had crispin's confidence but there are not more than 70 members of parliament, parliament has a total of 650 members, who share his view, and if you look at the business community, both small or large businesses, only one business i am aware of where the leader of that
5:45 pm
business, and it's a business running pubs, believes and no—deal brexit would be anything but disaster, and most of these 70 mps do not have the first clue about business, so do you trust them or the leaders of business groups and they say it will creep disruption, price rises and shortages and it is not responsible for any government to inflict that on the nation, and there isn't the majority in the house of commons to support that and we will find a way to stop it happening. nick boles, thank you. the conservative mp taking a different view to the one taken by crispin blunt a short while ago, a good illustration of the deep divisions through the house and on the conservative benches. where do we stand, then, after the prime
5:46 pm
minister's appeal to factory workers in stoke and the house of commons? let's discuss the day's developments further now with katy balls, deputy political editor of the spectator, and kevin maguire, associate editor of the daily mirror. has the prime minister got anywhere? if she has, it's very marginal, we think this might set a record for government defeats tomorrow when the deal is put to a vote. they haven't managed to quell the rebellion and it's just about the size of that defeat, some people think it could be around 200, the numbers need to get too close to 100 if theresa may has any chance of claiming her deal has any chance of claiming her deal has clung on. that would make life very difficult for the prime minister notwithstanding brexit but
5:47 pm
just her own authority. around 200, it would be hard to even say this deal will go anywhere so we are seeing now that whips working hard to reduce it to a number where she can say that is support, we just need to work on this. there is a feeling that they need to get to a number of bike which brussels will ta ke number of bike which brussels will take it seriously that this deal can get over the line if there are other concessions and we have seen amendments tabled today that could help with that, putting in an end date for the backstop. brussels haven't agreed to this but ministers think if this got support, it would show brussels that if they put an end date on the backstop, it could get through parliament. nothing has changed of any substance and it would be a dereliction of duty for the prime minister not to prepare for plan b when she is heading for
5:48 pm
clearly very heavy defeat. some of the mps on her own side are normally sane and rational, they are talking about 200, she is looking at jacob rees—mogg and there are group who launched a formal attempt to unseat her last year so cannot do that again fora her last year so cannot do that again for a year, the message for brussels might not be that her plan can somehow get through but that parliament will not vote for brexit and it may stiffen the resolve of the other 27 countries to give no more concessions. we heard nick boles saying that a senior committee could take over this process if there is no authority in government and if the house cannot come to our view, let's have your views on this. we saw parliament taking back control with the vote on to theresa
5:49 pm
may, on the finance at, yvette cooper and the dominic grieve motion after the speaker ruled you could discuss that, but there is no agreement on anything but being against a hard no—deal brexit. how you go forward, how you negotiate, norway or canada or a second referendum, there is no agreement on any of that and parliament is paralysed. the idea of throwing it toa paralysed. the idea of throwing it to a maker committee, 36 committee chairs, that will not lead to a quick decision, they will have similar problems to pop to theresa may has come across and another problem with the idea is that after it was announced, members of that committee said they were not consulted and are not keen on the idea so i think it's dead before it had a chance. if it is around 200
5:50 pm
tomorrow night, does the prime minister come back to the house? she won't tell anyone what her plan b is but if it gets to a big defeat i don't think she can claim there is any support for her deal. or she could suspend article 50, she doesn't want to go out without a deal but she is very weak at the moment, she may not face a formal challenge from mps, labour may move a no—confidence vote although i cannot see them winning that, it will be make your mind up time for jeremy corbyn on whether labour would back a second referendum, but ministers could say, you have to go. thank you both very much. nice to talk to you. so with those thoughts
5:51 pm
in mind, maybe a quick reminder of what happens tomorrow in parliament and what are the possible outcomes, because kevin and katie mentioned a few. our reality check correspondent chris morris has been plotting out all possible permutations for us. so this is where we start. a vote in parliament tomorrow — with all the political manoeuvring surrounding it — on theresa may's brexit deal. the legally binding withdrawal agreement and the non—binding political declaration on what the future relationship might look like. if it's accepted — which is looking highly unlikely tomorrow, but if it is — the path ahead is a bit more straightforward. the agreement would have to be turned into uk law with new legislation, and there'd be further parliamentary battles about that. then it would need to be ratified in the european parliament and get eu approval. if all that happens in time, then the uk would leave the eu on schedule with a deal on the 29th of march. but back over here, if it gets rejected, what then? well, the default position — if nothing changes at all —
5:52 pm
is down there. the uk still leaves on march the 29th, but with no deal and probably numerous resignations from the cabinet. but, as we know, there are many, many people determined to prevent that happening. so what then? well, the government will probably seek even more reassurance from brussels, especially on the irish backstop. and there could then be a second — or even a third — vote in parliament on the deal as the government tries to ramp up the pressure. again, if it's accepted, we're back to that line along the top, leaving the eu with a deal on march the 29th. but if the prime minister can't get her deal through the commons, well, we know that mps have already made plans to seize the initiative. they'll debate alternatives and try to prevent no deal from happening. that could mean trying to extend the article 50 negotiating period to buy a bit more time. but the rest of the eu would have to agree to that. and then what? well, first of all, there could be a different deal for leaving that the majority of mps can support. that could mean staying in the single market
5:53 pm
and the customs union — known by some as norway plus — or a different variation of that, advocated by the labour party — a permanent customs union and closer links with the single market. or even a cleaner break, a basic free—trade deal — a bit like canada has. it's worth pointing out that none of these would really change the withdrawal agreement itself, but mps might vote for a deal that sets out a clearer future direction. but if none of that works, well, we know that labour wants an election. and it says it will at some stage demand a vote of no—confidence in the government to try to get one. but there are also growing calls for another referendum to give the people another say now they know what the options are. that could, of course, lead to no brexit at all. but again, the default position in uk and eu law is that, if mps can't agree on any alternative, then — deal or no deal — brexit will happen on march the 29th, in just 75 days' time. that was chris morris. let's try to
5:54 pm
getan that was chris morris. let's try to get an insight into the thinking in number ten. with me isjoeyjones, who used to work as theresa may's spokesperson. what are your thoughts of the prospects for tomorrow if it's true that the prime minister is heading for a pretty hefty defeat, where does that leave her? the way they have managed expectations heals through the looking glass, anything under 100 is sort of ok, over 100 is grim and what you were talking about, 200, that is when the onus is on cabinet to decide if it is viable to go forward with to may at the helm and that takes it out of her hands. were you surprised by the mention of 200, is that something you had considered on the scale?
5:55 pm
it's hard to work out, probably all of us want this vote to happen, to see the numbers would give us a sense of reality about what is going on in people's minds and what they are willing to put their name to because there is a lot of talk and we need to see numbers. my gut feeling is that it won't be above 200 but i think it may creep into three figures, if i was in downing street i would be worried that the prime minister looks very lonely and beaten down and notjust from her personal perspective but the front bench, colombo despondency, not an ounce of energy from cabinet collea g u es ounce of energy from cabinet colleagues and i would say to don't expend too much energy at the moment, keep it within the bounds of respectability, which we might be redefining in the next 24 hours, but
5:56 pm
then she has another critical moment to try to move the dial and persuade mps there is still a journey that she can take them on. the prime minister's supporters say she is determined and knows her mind, others say she is simply stubborn and it will be difficult to convince her to let this agreement go. and it will be difficult to convince her to let this agreement gom will be difficult if it looks like she isjust grinding on, she needs to find a way to suggest she can reframe the argument in the wake of what will probably be a calamitous defeat and that will take not just energy, she has boundless stamina, but some imagination and ability to show she can step above the fray and map something out because it's not as though there is leadership in any other, coming from anyone else,
5:57 pm
there is no saviour on a white charger who will write to the rescue so people will look to to theresa may but if she just grinds steadily on and thinks that will be enough, it will be difficult to persuade her colleagues. at what point does the prime minister thing, i cannot carry on? at every point she has defied gravity, she has been hanging by a thread from the moment of that general election, it gets ever more tenuous and she defied my own predictions, so who is to say that will not happen? but the challenge is really that she hasn't demonstrated the imagination to reach across the divide to labour, there have been people pretty much waving from across the chamber like
5:58 pm
caroline flint, saying come and talk to me, but it hasn't happened, that inability to think outside the box is part of the problem we are in. inability to think outside the box is part of the problem we are inm will be an interesting 24 hours. j°ey will be an interesting 24 hours. joeyjones there, a former adviser and spokesperson for theresa may. you can watch live coverage from the house of commons on bbc parliament, the prime minister still answering questions, or you can stay with us for bbc news at six, but for now let's catch up with the weather. i greater chance of seeing some sunshine this week but we could return to night—time frosts. for now it's relatively quiet with these weather fronts pushing it's relatively quiet with these weatherfronts pushing in from it's relatively quiet with these weather fronts pushing in from the atla ntic weather fronts pushing in from the atlantic so that is bringing more cloud in from the west, eastern
5:59 pm
areas seeing sunnier skies and towards the end of the day we could see scattered showers. into tuesday, it looks likely we will see that weather front bring some more wet weather front bring some more wet weather into the north and west and turn heavy, also winds backing up in the far north so some of the rain heavily on tuesday, clouding over into northern ireland and western fringes but sheltered eastern areas should see some sunshine in the afternoon and it will be mild for all. make the most of it. colder by the end of the week. on the eve of the most important vote of her premiership —
6:00 pm
theresa may appeals to mps to support her brexit deal. she warns rejecting the deal would lead to paralysis in parliament, and endanger britain's departure from the eu. i say we should deliver for the british people and get on with building a brighter future for our country by backing this deal tomorrow. it's clear, if the prime minister's deal is rejected tomorrow it's time for a general election. it's time for a new government! with 24 hours to go — we'll be asking voters what they make of the extraordinary events in parliament. and the other main stories on tonight's programme: trying to clean up the air we breathe — ministers plan new curbs on burning domestic wood and coal

97 Views

info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on