tv British Prime Minister May Delivers Statement on Brexit Deal CSPAN May 22, 2019 7:57am-8:59am EDT
fathers brothers and sons. through their actions, countless lives, reliably informed, that she is with us today observing our proceedings. and fellow women. we extend the warmest welcome to her in the house of commons. [applause] >> the prime minister. >> with permission before i make my statement may i recognize others and all those over the years who campaigned to ensure that those in the workplace can have the degree of safety and
security that they need. i would like to make a statement on the government's work to deliver brexit by putting forward a new deal members of this house can stand behind. we need to see brexit through to honor the result of the referendum and deliver the change the british people so clearly demanded. i sincerely believe most members of this house feel the same. for all our division and disagreement we believe in democracy. we want to make good on the promise we made to the british people when we asked them to decide on the future of our eu membership. as to how we make that happen recent votes of shown there is no majority in this house believing with no deal at this house voted against revoking article 15. it is clear the only way forward is leaving with a deal but equally clear that this will not happen without compromise on all
sides of the debate. that start with a government which is why we held 6 weeks of detailed talks with the opposition, talks that the leader of the opposition chose to end before an agreement was reached but we nonetheless revealed areas of common ground and having listened to the opposition to other party leaders, to business leaders, trade unionists and others we are making a 10 point offered to members across the house. 10 changes that address concerned raised by honorable and right honorable members, 10 binding commitments that will be enshrined in legislation so they cannot simply be ignored and 10 steps that will bring us closer to the bright future that awaits our country once we end the political empire and get brexit done. first we will protect british jobs by trading goods with the eu as possible while outside the single market and ending free movement. the government will be placed under a legal duty to negotiate our future relationship on this basis second, we will provide
much-needed certainty for vital manufacturing and agricultural sectors by keeping up-to-date with eu rules for goods and products that are relevant to checks at the border. such a commitment which will be enshrined in legislation will protect thousands of skilled jobs that depend on just-in-time supply chains. .. the opposition are both skeptical of our ability to negotiate that and don't believe a trade policies in the national
interest. they would prefer a comprehensive customs union with a uk site in policy but with the eu negotiations on our behalf. as part of the cross party discussions the government offered a compromised option of a temporary customs union a good solid including relative eu trade policy. so the next government can decide its preferred direction. but we were not able to reach agreement so instead we will commit an law to let parliament decide this issue and to reflect the outcome of this process in legislation. fourth, to address concerns of a future company could roll back hard-won protection for employees, we will publish a new workers' rights bill. as i told the house many times, success british administrations of all colors have granted british workers' rights and protections well above the standards demanded by brussels. i know the people want guarantees and i'm happy to
provide them. it passed by parliament this bill will guarantee the rights enjoyed by british workers can be no less favorable than those other counterparts in the eu both now and in the future. we will discuss further amendments for trade unions and business. fifth, a new brexiteer will also guarantee there will be no change in the lever of environmental protection when we leave the eu and we will establish a new and wholly independent office of environmental protection able to uphold standards and enforce compliance. six, withdrawal agreement built the place a legal duty on government to seek changes to the political declaration that will be needed to reflect this new deal. i'm confident we will be successful in doing so. seventh, the government would include in the withdrawal agreement built at introduction of requirement to vote on whether to hold a second referendum here i've made my own view clear on this many times. i am against a second referend
referendum. we should be implementing the result of the first referendum, not asking the british people to vote in a second one. what would it say about our democracy is the biggest vote in our history were to be rerun against this house didn't like the outcome? what would it do to that democracy and what forces would it unleash? what i recognize the genuine and sincere strength of feeling across the house on this important issue. so to those mps who want a second referendum to confirm the deal i say you need a deal and, therefore, i draw a bill to make it happen. make your case department. if this house votes for a referendum, it would be requiring the government to make provisions for such a referendum, including legislation if it wanted to ratify withdrawal agreements. parliament will be guaranteed a much greater role in the second part of the brexit process.
the negotiations over a future relationship with the eu. in line with proposal put forth by the honorable members, the new brexit you would set out in law the house of commons will to prove the uk's objective for negotiations and mps will be asked to approve the treaty governing that relationship to call the government side to. ninth, the new brexit you would legally advise the government to seek to conclude the alternative arrangements process by decembed for the northern island backstop. this commitment is made in the spirit of the amendments tabled by my article print the member passed by this house on the 29th of january. while it is not possible to use alternative arrangements to replace the backstop in the withdrawal agreement we will ensure they are a viable alternative. and finally ten, we will ensure that should the backstop come in full, great britain will stay in line with northern island. we will prohibit the proposal a future government could split northern island off from uk's
custom territory and we will deliver on our commitments to northern island in the december 2017 joint report in full. we will implement paragraph 50 of the joint report in law for northern island assembly and executives will have to give their consent on a cross community basis for new regulations which are added to the backstop. we will work with our supply partners on how these commitments should be entrenched in law so that northern ireland cannot be separated from the united kingdom. following the end of eu election, the withdrawal agreement built will be published on friday so the house has maximum possible time to study speaker. if parliament passes the bill before the summer recess, the uk will leave the eu by the end of july we will be out of the eu political structures, out of the union, we will stop british laws being enforced by a european court. we will end free movement. we will stop making fast annual payments to the eu budget.
by any definition that is known as delivering brexit and by linking with a deal we can do so much more besides. we can protect jobs, guarantee workers' rights, maintain the close security partnerships that do so much to keep us all safe. we will ensure there is no hard border between northern ireland at ireland. and we can bring an end to the month, years of increasingly bitter argument and division that of both polarized and paralyzed our politics. we can move on, move forward and get on with the jobs we were sit your to do, what we got into politics to do. that is what we can achieve if we can forge the studio. reject it and all we have before us is division and deadlock. we risk leading with no deal,, something this house is clearly against. we risk stopping brexit altogether, something the british people, something the british people would simply not
tolerate. we risk creating further division. we risk creating further division at a time when we need to be acting together in the national interest. and we guarantee of future in which our politics become still more polarized and voters increasingly desperate as they see as failing to do what they asked of us. none of us want to see that happen. the opportunity of brexit is too large and the consequences of failure to grave to risk further delay. so in the weeks ahead they will be opportunities for mps on all sides to have their say to table amendments come to shape the brexit they and their constituents want to see. mr. speaker, in time another prime minister would be standing at this dispatch box, but while i am here i have a duty to be clear with the house, i have a duty to be clear with the house about the fact. if we are going to deliver brexit in this parliament we are
going to have to pass the withdrawal agreement built and we will not do so without holding votes on the issues that have divided us the most. that includes both on customs arrangements and on a second referendum. we can pretend otherwise and carry on arguing and getting nowhere i'd in the end our job is this house is to take decisions, not to doctor them. so i will put those decisions to this house because that is my duty and because it is the only way that we can deliver brexit. so let's demonstrate what this house can achieve. let's come together, honor the referendum, deliver what we promised the british people and build successful future for our whole country. and i commend the statement to the house. >> jeremy corbyn. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i think the prime minister advanced copy of the statement. in fact, i received it yesterday when the prime minister made an
appeal seeking common ground and parliament. where did she make that appeal? not in parliament but in a small room just down the road. mr. speaker, it's now clear, the bold new deal the prime minister promispromised is little more ta repackaged version -- [inaudible] -- we will leave the british house -- >> refused to consult the public or parliament picture did not seek a compromise until after she missed her own deadline to leave. and by the time she finally did,
she had lost the authority to deliver. that became evident during the six weeks of cross party talks that ended last week. talks that were entered into constructively both sides to see if a compromise was possible. but, mr. speaker, while those talks are going on cabinet minister after cabinet minister made statements undermined what their colleagues in the room were offering. the foreign secretary, international trade secretary and treasury chief secretary all made clear they would not tolerate a deal which included a customs union. while the tory leadership contender after tory leadership contender took it in turn to make it absolutely clear that in the compromised deal with not be honored. therefore, mr. speaker, no matter what the prime minister offers, it's clear no compromise
would survive the upcoming tory leadership contest. the multiple leaks reported from the cabinet yesterday show the prime minister couldn't even get the compromise deal she wanted through her own cabinet. and it's clear that the shrunken offer that emerged satisfied no one. not her own backbenchers, not the du p come and to not the official opposition either. no labour mp can vote for a deal on the promise of a prime minister who only has days left in her job. and even if the prime minister could honor her promises, the deal she's putting people us does not represent a genuine compromise. her ten point plan is riddled with contradiction and wishful thinking. firstly, the prime minister pretends she delivering something new with a temporary customs union. this isn't a compromise.
it's just accepting the reality. under the withdrawal agreement we will already be in a temporary customs union through the transition period which can last for up to four years. and if not, we will enter the backstop which in effect keeps us in a customs union, too, without any say. secondly, why would this house legislate for a plan which has already been comprehensively rejected by the european union? the government once to abide with the european union on goods to keep frictionless trade. while at the same time wants to pursue trade deals which would undermine this process. it's simply not compatible. the technology they need to continue to pursue their chequers plan simply doesn't exist. it's already been ruled by the eu as illegal, impractical, and
an invitation to fraud. and, mr. speaker, the government has failed to provide in the economic analysis to show this would make us better off. why would the house support such a chaotic and desperate approach? labour set out a sensible, compromised to plan over a year ago, including a comprehensive and permanent customs union with the eu that gives us a say, that would allow us to strike trade deals as part of the world's biggest trading block, ring investment while maintaining the highest standards. it's credible and achievable. and the best way to protect industry manufacturing of jobs, something this government is willfully indifferent to, and the latest crisis in the steel industry shows today.
the government must be prepared to step in and take a public stake to save thousands of high skilled jobs of british steel. a foundation industry for any major economy. instead, the tory obsession is for striking trade deals with the likes of donald trump. they prioritize chlorinated chicken, further nhs privatization, and the regulation over protecting supply chains and jobs in this country. on workers' rights, mr. speaker, we did get to see the full package the government intends to bring forward. but many in the trade union movement remain very skeptical. as frances o'grady of the trades union congress said yesterday, and i quote, this reheated brexit deal won't protect
peoples jobs and rights. on environmental protections, it's clear the prime minister is not offering dynamic alignment. and under her proposals, the united kingdom would fall behind in a number of areas, with only a toothless regulator under the control of the environment secretary in place of binding international commitments to protect our environment. finally, mr. speaker, on the issue of a confirmation vote. i'm sure nobody here will be fooled by what the prime minister is offering. will the prime minister tell us now if this offer is genuine? was she give her party a free vote on this issue or will she come as before, as before, with against a call from entry referendum. if the government truly believes
this is the best deal for the economy and for jobs, they should not fear putting that to the people. mr. speaker, for too long, for too long our politics has been seen through a prism of leave or remain. this is dividing our society and poisoning our democracy. it means -- vital issues have been neglected, the crisis in her schools and hospitals, the housing crisis and the cruelty of the social security policy and universal credit. our country needs of leadership to bring us together. however, this prime minister is not the person to do that. throughout the last two years she's made no attempt to unite
the country. she's been focused only on keeping her divided party together. and it hasn't worked. [shouting] her time as no one at pitching alone has the authority to offer compromise and cannot deliver. that's why it's time for a general election to break the brexit deadlock and give the country a say. [shouting] >> prime minister. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i think the game was given away by the right honorable gentleman when he made it absolutely clear that as far as he's concerned the way to get this to the house is for everybody else to compromise to his plan and only his plan. in his statement he was very clear that he was not making any proposal to compromise. the government has indeed compromised. we have recognized that are
issues of which this house will need to decide, and that is the plain fact. there are different opinions across this house on the two key issues of the future customs arrangement and the second referendum. i have made my position very clear on these. the government has set up its position but it is for this house to decide, and the best vehicle to do this is within the withdrawal agreement bill. so then this house can finally make its might up as to what it wants the future customs arrangement to be and as to whether it thinks they should be a second referendum. he talks about revote on the second reference. in the indicative vote process that went through, we did indeed get in so that members of revote on this issue and the second referendum was rejected across the house. he talks about, he has some inaccurate, turkey talk about
the environmental regulation. it will be an independent body which is able to hold the government to account on the issue of environmental standards. i think he showed his blinkered view on trade when what he sets out is as far as he seems to be concerned, the only issue, the only people he wants to trade with our european union. what we want to see is a good trade deal with the eu and good trade deals with other countries around the world. that is the best way forward for the united kingdom. and he talked about british steel and answered in response to questions in pmqs on british steel and what the government is doing. he talks about the government position of wanting a comprehensive customs union and of wanting all that dynamic alignment and that single market. i have to say to the right honorable gentleman that what the labour party wants to achieve an in its relationship h the eu would make it even harder for a british government to take action to protect industries like the steel industry.
he himself has always complained about -- but he would be wanting to tie himself into those rules by what he is proposing or the future. of course what we see, he talks about different opinions picky talks but different opinions across this house. of course the one issue that is never properly been resolved in this house in which the withdrawal agreement bill would force to be resolved in this house is whether the right honorable gentleman himself is for brexit or against it. if he is for brexit he will vote for the withdrawal agreement bill. voting against the withdrawal agreement bill is voted against the brexit. >> mr. speaker, can i say to my right of a friend that the sporting her environment secretary was on the radio, and when asked whether this was certain that this second reading would be brought back to part of
it, he didn't answer in the affirmative. he said they would take reflections and they would listen. my question for the prime minister is having present this at the dispatch box, issue absolute certain now that she would bring this bill back to the house for a second reading? and if so could she name the date now and did say she will stick to it? >> my right honorable friend, we've already made the government's position clear, the second reading of the withdrawal agreement bill will be brought to the house after the winter recess. >> thank you, mr. speaker. it is cast to thank the prime minister for advanced statement. it was was with some surprise that we all saw the statement delivered not in the house of commons but elsewhere yesterday. can ask the prime minister why we didn't follow the usual protocol and parliament is a first to hear such statement from the prime minister?
mr. speaker, let me get the prime minister some friendly advice. this deal is dead. stop the charade and let's get on with putting the decision back to the people once and for all. the headline this morning cry of doom. the bench opposite conjugate of ways to mount her leadership coup and that the clock with her doing this afternoon because they are not here to support the prime minister. this is no way to run the government. the prime minister as asking mps to vote for a deal that takes scotland out of the single market and eventually out of the customs union. this simply cannot be allowed to happen. this is the governments attempt to blackmail mps. look behind the smoke and mirrors, a new revised deal that hasn't even been negotiated with
brussels. a second eu referendum but only if you vote for the bill. a possible temporary customs union with the future uk government could change and the european union have dismissed. i trade arrangement which the former uk representative to the eu has described as the definition of insanity. mr. speaker, none of what the prime minister announced yesterday was discussed with the devolved government. this really goes to the heart of the problem. in december 2016 the scottish government published a compromise position. this was projected without discussion. scotland's voice has been ignored time and time again. brexit has -- from the scottish parliament. that is no respect for the devolved administration by this government. westminster has ignored
scotland. mr. speaker, this is a tory mess. look around, there is no support for the prime minister is deal. prime minister, this deal faces even a bigger defeat the last one. tomorrow, communities will make their voice heard, and our democratic european relation. mr. speaker, a vote for the scottish national party is a vote to stop brexit. a vote to stop this economic matters, about to respect scotland's decision in 2016. the prime minister has lost the confidence of her party. parliament will not support her and she has lost the trust of the people. it is time, prime minister, to go. will you do it? >> so i say to the right honorable gentleman that i think he talks about the discussions with the scottish government. of course there have been many
discussions both i admit the first minister, my right honorable friend has held a number of meetings with scottish government. the devolved administration has been party to the debate and discussions have taken place. becca and i just say this to the right honorable gentleman? he says a vote for the scottish nationals is a vote not to leave the european union. well, a vote for the scottish nationalists is a vote to betray our democracy. about to betray the view of the people of the united kingdom. people are in this house to deliver brexit. we have a responsibility to do that. the question is how we do that come withdrawal agreement bill gives opportunity to debate those issues about how we do that and i say to the right honorable gentleman that this house should have those debates, come to the decision, stop ducking the issues and get on with the jobs of british people instructed us to do.
>> what is the prime minister said to the many members of the public who think the government should -- on 29 march with or without the withdrawal treaty? and what does she say to those millions of angry voters who do not see the agreement with any kind of brexit but a lock in for many, many months with no clear without? >> can i say with the greatest respect to my right honorable friend what i would say to those voters expected us to live on the 29th of march is the government's position was we should leave on 29 march. the majority. the majority of the current benches voted for us to live on the 29th of march. sadly, the opposition and some others voted to keep us and at that date. >> given that this bill appears to have been sunk even before its publication, the prime minister must know that the only
way now to break the deadlock, which is today's terrible news a british deal, shows is damaging our economy, put the choice back to the british people. so can i urge her at the 11th hour to take that one final step to change her mind and to say that she will -- i confirmatory vote? >> can i say to the prime minister i've indicated in answers to questions i have not changed my view on the issue of second reveren referenda. ideally we should be reflecting the view is putting into place the views of the people in the first referendum that took place on this issue but i recognize there is a strength of feeling in this house on this issue including from the right honorable gentleman and others on his benches, and that is why it is important that we are able in this house to determine this issue. that is best done through the
passage of the bill, for the passage of the withdrawal agreement bill and that is what i said what it did yesterday and it's why i have done what i did today on confirming that there will be a vote on a second referendum, whether told a second referendum in withdrawal agreement bill. the position will be clear that we don't think it right to hold a second referendum but it will be for members of this house to be able to come together and determine that view. for those who believe there should be a second referendum to get to put their case to the house and for the house to come to its decision. >> the prime minister tells us that if mps vote for the withdrawal agreement bill, which we haven't even seen that we would leave the european union by the 31st of july. how on earth does she know? >> because i've been discussing
this and the timetable has to be agreed in this house. it is very clear, the result of last year european council makes it clear that the timetable will be possible to put through giving come bringing the bill back for a second reading after the recess that would enable us to do exactly what i said, leave the european union. on the 31st of july. >> given the awful news about british steel. it's crucial the government stands up to british manufacturer. the prime minister will know the customs union is important to manufacture across the north and midlands you can also the industry needs a long-term deal to support investments. it's a given the coming out of cabinet yesterday, can't you
tell us that has out a long-term customs union being part of the future partnership with the eu that they are supposedly going to negotiate after this withdrawal agreement? have they broke out a long-term customs union, yes or no? >> catennessee for the she reference what is happened to the company bridge steel. she will be aware as others will that there are number of issues come a number of challenges to face in the steel industry, not just here in the uk but globally. part of that is the overcapacity issue because supplies are outstripping debate and much of the production is coming from china. that is why in the g20, two years ago we acted to bring china around the table to try to deal with that issue. the compromise solution that i i put forward and reference number statement on the custom is designed to ensure a future
government can take that issue in the direction that it wishes to take it, and for the house to determine what those negotiations objectives should be. what matters to our manufacturing industry is the frictions that take place at the border and having the benefits of customs union and no terrace and no quotas. that is exactly what is already in the political declaration because if they were committed to ensuring that trade. >> it's quite difficult to make judgment about the bill when it hasn't been published. and if the issues, the nasa should and have been made this week and next week this house is in recess which is very nice for all of us but it's not needed given the seriousness of the situation. i will probably vote for the bill when it comes back but i asked her to reflect carefully on what it should be put to parliament. because the consequences of not
being passed are very serious and if she really wants to heal the divisions to get on with it, i would ask her to reflect very strictly about this bill not being put to parliament early june and the allowed more compromise, more time being taken. >> can i say to my right honorable friend, that she is right that if the bill is not passed, then this house will be faced with a serious choice and that choice will be whether they go for nor deal of whether they go something which is either revoking article 50 or second referendum with the intention many have been asking for second referendum to stop brexit and that will be the choice that will face this house which is why i say, people talk about compromise us have been made so far. there are people tol telling mei have compromised too much in the package that is being put forward. others are telling me i have not compromised enough in the package that is being put forward. at some stage the house has to
come together and we have to take, go and decide the distance we will go together in order to deliver brexit and deliver on what people ask us to do. >> the prime minister has prepared a lot on the statement yesterday to the new deal, the new brexit deal, but isn't it a fact that the deal itself hasn't changed with the treaty is as it is and these are a series of domestic legislative provisions to try to mitigate what is in some cases of very bad deal that won't change the brexit deal itself. to illustrate that, the alternative arrangements proposed which she has put forward seeks marriag a to legay obliged the government to conclude its own processes. would she confirm there's absolutely no obligation on the european union to agree alternative arrangements and a final decision as to whether
they accept them or view them as reasonable is entirely a matter for them? would not be an objective assessment. if a member state government decides it would rather keep us in the customs union, and that's what will happen. there will be no means of getting out of it. >> can i say that we put forwad to the house today a package of proposals. it is a new package of proposals. he has been clear in relation to the operation of the backstop one of its key concerns was made in the uk wide. that commitment is in the statement i made today as i said we're happy to sit down and discuss how we can ensure that these are enshrined in law which a note it's always been an issue of concern to the right honorable gentleman. regard to the alternative arrangements as the groups to do that working set up by government, the money being reported by government to do that work, but the european union was clear and then committed themselves in the
legally binding commitments that have been made at recent council meeting that they will also work with us to ensure that those alternative arrangements are in place and available by december 2020. [inaudible] -- by dick in international law? >> as i've said on many occasions, that you councils made it clear on many location that they are not reopening withdrawal agreement it will be done in the process that we have, that we took to the house up until now to the most recent discussion with th european unin is been able to have certain legally binding commitments made by both the uk and the european union in addition to the withdrawal agreement which covers a number of issues which a been a concern to people in this house. >> does the prime minister understand that she will not get
enough support from members on this side of house to allow the withdrawal agreement to pass unless she includes a confirmatory vote on the fate of the bill? she has come to the end of the rope but indeed any conservative mp who wants to stop the prime minister's successor from inevitably getting and no deal brexit they must act giving the public a final say. time is running out. prime minister, please change your mind. >> can i say, this issue which i say they're very strong feelings across this house. i've met with never some all sides of this house to support a second referendum and put forward their case with their sincere belief in that second referendum. i have a different view. ideally we should move on with the referent but i believe this is because of the strength of the view across the south on both sides of the argument it's important to house as opportunity properly to consider
it in a way that is a process, that is through the withdrawal agreement bill. >> one of the ironies of resigning from government is it gives you rather more freedom and emphasis when you choose to support the government rather than just oppose it. and it will be supporting the prime minister's deal. can't i thank her for her efforts and asked her to recognize there's too many people in the country who believe that the best future for the uk outside the eu is with a compromised deal based on the interest of both, rather than a reckless and increasingly bitter pursuit of a single type of no deal leaving? the cost to many businesses, industry, agriculture and across the country so skewered by the chancellor in his speech yesterday. >> can i say to my right honorable friend i agree that i think there are many people
across this country who want to see if leaving the eu and an orderly way and with the deal. and, indeed, that was the manifesto in which he and i and those of the procedure as conservatives stood at the last election. we stood to deliver the best possible different britain as relief the european union, delivered by a smooth orderly brexit with a new deep and special partnership including a comprehensive free trade and customs agreement with the european union. those are the objectives i have been pursuing i put forward today a new package that does change the situation that was being voted on previously and i hope all those who want to leave the european union with fake it will indeed support it. >> in 1992 the prime minister and i -- of northwestern and i was hugely impressed with her resilience in front of audiences that were as hostile to her as it were a different me. but it turns out, it turns out indeed, turns out the audience
behind her is tougher still. she will fail in her bid in two weeks time because people behind or who offer brexit refuse to vote for brexit. that is not her fault but it is her problem. i want to help her out. if she will agree to put her to which will be fair to is the only concrete vote to brexit we've yet seen, to the british people in a confirmatory vote then i will vote for in the lobby. will she help me to help her? >> can i say to the right honorable gentleman, and i fondly remember those days and making 92 in northwest durham. i can also say if this house does not pass the withdrawal agreement bill, if this house does not enable the treaty to be ratified and what this house is saying is that does not want to leave the european union with a different i believe majority of people in this house do want to leave with a deal.
this is the vehicle to do it. >> thank you, mr. speaker. first, she said it is up to the house to decide about a customs union and the second resin. had i correct our course it is not up to mps to decide that. the country decided to leave the eu. it's as simple as that. it's not for the house. the second point when responding to my friend from waking him, she said we couldn't have left the eu on the 29th of march. the legal position was that we could, but that she, and dare i say, a very heavy cabinet decided not to take us out. >> can i say to my honorable friend that i and my colleagues across the government voted to leave the european union on the 29th of march. we continue to believe the best way to leave is with the deal.
that is the manifesto which i friend and i both stood in the last general election and i believe it's important that we recognize that and that we deliver that for the british people. the points he makes up whether it is the houston second the british people voted to leave. i've been trying to leave the european union. i am looking forward to voting a fourth time to leave the european union. the withdrawal agreement bill sally opposition members and some of my colleagues have not voted alongside me in that way, but how we do that, how we do that is a matter for this house. because the deal has to be ratified by this house, and government and this house have to determine what the objective for the next date of negotiations are going to be. i have been clear that those negotiations will be taken had four by somebody else leading this government. not what i'm also clear about, you can't get onto the second stage negotiations until you get
over the first states. that's what the bill is about. >> mr. speaker, the prime minister statement referred rightly to the need to avoid the risks that are inherent in the brexit process. doesn't she realized her latest proposals actually hardwire hard those risks into the process themselves? >> if the right honorable gentleman is talking on the issues which are significant division into southcom customs and the second referent and taking those in the withdrawal agreement bill, what the government is doing is committing to ensure those issues can be addressed during the passage of the bill. the reality is in the way legislation works in this house in the bill brought before the people would put amendments and amendments could be seen on whole range of issues including those issues. they key issue is what is determined by this house in
response to those issues? this house will have to come to a decision. >> on the negotiations thus far, what arrangements alternative to the irish backstop does my right honorable friend consider are most capable of agreement? >> well, a number of o of her posts have been put before the european union which have a number of elements in them brings together both technological approaches, some of which can be improved as we see technology development but also the key issues that have been in discussions of far are those about elements of that delegation for the law and order to enable the alternative arrangements to provide for the no hard order in the way that both sides intended to do. >> with respect, the primacy is
asking us to put our faith in her deal as frankly authority -- every passing hour. the tories have had three years to agree a deal amongst themselves including weeks of full on collaboration with labour. yes, there is no guarantee to bring this bill back next month. how can we believe that any guarantee of a people's vote when she cannot even bring herself to put on the face of the bill? >> can i say to the right honorable lady she and i have a different view on the second referendum what am saying is that is an issue which we will make sure that this house is able to determine. she wants to ensure those other people's vote but evil before this house to decide whether or not. it's already been rejected by this house but it will be for the house to come to decision on the issue and the house will accept that decision. >> thank you, mr. speaker.
we cannot continue to lead our country in this uncertainty. this has to stop. the whole house needs to stop saying no to everything on the table just because it's not our favorite dish. the eu negotiations actually, they need to stop saying no to every time we have an issue as well. but we have to end this uncertainty. if we vote for this bill we can move on and the discussions on the next stage can start. but, prime minister, what happens if we say no again? >> she's right that we do need to be able to move on and we can move on while respecting the wishes of the british people are taking this bill through by ensuring that we ratified and leave the european union. if people in this house choose not to take this bill forward
then it is facing its up with a choice as to whether it wants no deal or no brexit. that is the choice that would be available to people in this house. ideally, i still believe there's a majority in the south of what to what to deliver on the referent result but do so with the deal. this is the bill that enables that to happen. >> mr. speaker, it's clear the house is going to reject the prime minister's bill for a fourth time and she's indicated that she will then set out a timetable for departure. she's also just said there's no mandate here to leave without aa deal or indeed the country. with regard to the timetable, if it is the case a change in prime minister occurs near the end of october leaving her successor no time to negotiate a further extension, will she herself request a further extension before the september recess to stop by sleeping with no deal? >> the honorable gentleman knows i'm chairman hatch to that, which is everyone wants to ensure that we do not leave the
european union without a deal, then the best we is to agree a deal and that is the bill. >> sad irony that those of my call to most want to leave the european union are so far frustrated us from doing so by voting with labour and the scottish nationalist. the prime minister is quite right to highlight the dangers of parliament not supporting withdrawal agreement bill the day before the european elections which none of us on the side wanted to happen. does she agree with me that the superficially seductive line from the brexit party, just leave on wto terms, holds enormous dangers above all for our farmers and for manufacturers, and that this line would, in fact, cause the breakup of the united kingdom? >> can i say to my honorable friend that is absolutely right, particularly in the point he made about the dangers of a new
deal brexit for the future of united kingdom, and that is the main concern that have in relation to the issue. but it is also surprising to see some of those who at the time of the referendum at the time of encouraging people to leave, which talked a leading with the deal, about being like norway, about accepting those thoughts of restraint on the ability of the united kingdom now not being willing to accept what is a good deal for the uk, what enables us to ensure that we can leave with a deal that is good for the future of the uk. when people come to vote at the european elections tomorrow, they have opportunity to vote for a party that not only believes in delivering brexit i can do it and that is the conservatives. >> thank you, mr. speaker. the prime minister has said that this 10. offer was -- yet there's nothing in it to address the concerns expressed by scotland's government, the cross party majority of scotland's
parliament and the majority of scottish members elected to this house. know that her days of sneering at the democratic elected rhapsodies of scotland are nearly at an end. does she concede that her successor will need a more intelligent approach to scotland and she has failed to adopt? >> i say to the honorable lady, with consistent gauge with the scottish governor with consistently engaged with the welsh government throughout these discussions and negotiations that we've had in relation to our future in the european union. but can also say to the honorable lady, that what is important is that we all recognize the responsibility that we have to deliver on the boat that took place in 2016 -- [inaudible] well, can i say to the honorable lady, she doesn't have that responsibility. she is an elected member of this
house, and she has a responsibility in the votes that she casts. she has said consistently, she has said consistently that she doesn't want us to leave without a deal. i can only happen if we have a deal or of course images to stay in the european union. she says that we have not listen to the scottish government. what the scottish nationals have made clear at every stage is now that they wish to revoke article 50, they were to go back on the referent result of 2016 and the wish to keep the united kingdom and the eu. the majority of the british population do not want that. they want a party in government and they want parliamentarians in this house to deliver on what they asked us to do. >> the prime minister rightly referred in your statement --
thithis is a most extraordinary situation. the honorable gentleman is seeking to ask a question and he has been effectively heckled and prevented any seemly way from doing so from the judgment and a sedentary position by the honorable member. calm yourself, man. the prime minister certainly can look after so. she was asked a question and ws given an answer. there can be a difference of opinion and difference of interpretation. the honorable gentleman has in any way benefited the knicks by his disorderly chatter. >> thank you, mr. speaker. the prime minister rightly referred in her statement to the importance of leaving in a way which maintains the closest possible security policing and judicial cooperation with the -- have at the moment. the committee was given a clear evidence by the en end of the national tragedy that to do otherwise would severely impair
our ability to fight organized crime and terrorism and keep our country safe. does she agree that to fail to leave without a deal, to pass it on available of leaving the deal would be to put the secret of the contract risk and that is that something in member of this house responsibly contemplate doing? >> he's right to raise the issue of security. it is one that is rarely raised in the state, question stink about the economic relationship and trade relationship but the security relationship is fundamental to us being able to keep ourselves safe. that's why i'm pleased we've negotiated in the declaration the strongest possible security relationship with the eu for the future, for any country that will be outside the european union but, of course, if we were to leave with no deal, then though security relationships would not be open to us. could we negotiate some for the future? that is of course possible but it would require further negotiations and the point of
leaving, though security relationships would be stopped. >> i agree with the right honorable member who left the chamber now but what she was saying was everyone should take a breath and take stock of what is on the table, look at the published bill when it arrives on friday but also i think to all colleagues across the house, be mindful of the result of the european election. the prime minister has said seven times already that if the second reading of this bill does not succeed, there will not be another opportunity to leave with a withdrawal bill. the only course and direction would be to leave without any deal at all her and that she age with me that anybody on whatever side of the house, if they claim to be against no deal, they should give this proposition? without any commitment right
now, they should give this proposition due consideration, think about how they will amend it. and as my right honorable friend said, recently in a newspaper report, stop the shouting and start agreeing on what we can agree to move forward. >> can i say to the right honorable lady she's absolutely right and that is the point of the process of legislation we have in this house is once we are be on second reading it will be open to members across house to put amendments down to the bill and have those debates about precise detail about how we are leaving. but anybody who wants to ensure that we leave with the deal and that we don't see and no deal situation should support the second reading, enter into that debate and that debate itself of course doesn't make commitments towards the end of the process. i would hope that we would see that bill being passed and, therefore, the treaty ratified but he will be open to have that debate while the bill is progressing through this house.
>> -- spoken with a great deal of consensus. with my right honorable friend spell out what she has heard will be the consequences for our economy of leaving without a deal? >> can i say to my honorable friend there have been a number of analysis have been done in relation to the impact of leaving without a deal. i think that would be an immediate impact economically of leaving without a deal. over time of course we could restore our fortunes but i think it is much better to be in a position where we are leaving with a deal which will unleash i was significant business investment in this country and see that positive future of our economy. that's possible by leaving with a deal. >> i've been listening to the prime minister respond to several questions about the consequences of no deal. given what likely is to happen
in the european parliament elections tomorrow, on which she has fired the starting gun, does she regret legitimizing and normalizing a no deal outcome in the means of the public for the repetition of the mantra no deal is better than it had to? >> no, i don't. no government could of got into a situation where it said it would accept whatever it was offered rather than be willing to see no deal. if it had been a bad deal then i stand by what i said in relation to that matter what i also say to my honorable gentleman that anybody sitting in this chamber who believes that we should not have no deal situation has to support a deal, and that is the only way of making sure we leave not with a new deal. and that vehicle for doing that in determining the details of that leaving is the withdrawal agreement bill.
>> unlike 1831, the 1832 reform bill got through because some of those who were opposed to, did not vote against it and that took progress. can i say as a national interest conservative i have my choice voted with the government on every single vote because i think it's right? and can i say others who think that no deal is bad and trying to reverse referendum is bad, that the majority of folks in this house and in the country will first see the withdrawal agreement bill gets through, at least gets through a second reading so we can make progress and have a chance of maybe a better future for our country? >> absolutely right, if we get through the second reading we can then determine the details to the progress of the bill of the precise nature of our leading to that will enable us to see progress for this country and i believe just to pick up what my honorable friend said, i believe this is absolutely in the national interest that we should leave the european union
as the referendum vote said but we should do it with a good deal for this country and that is what is offered. >> we believe our life brexit coverage from the british house of commons. a quick reminder, prime minister's questions is like wednesdays at 7 p.m. eastern when parliament is in session and you can see this week's session again sunday night at nine eastern and pacific on c-span. for more information go to c-span.org and click on series to view every program we've erred from the british house of commons since october of 1989. >> c-span's newest book, the presidents, noted historians rank america's best and worst chief executives, provides insight into the life of the 44 american presidents. true stories gathered by interviews with noted presidential historians. explore the life events that shape our leaders, challenges they faced and the legacies they