tv British Prime Minister Theresa May on Latest Brexit Negotiations CSPAN November 26, 2018 6:45pm-7:49pm EST
appeared before parliament for the first time since the european union signed off on her brexit plan. several members openly expressed opposition to the plan. we will shoot you -- we will show you an hours portion of today's session. i would like to make a statement on the conclusion of our negotiations to leave the european union. brussels, i read should deal with the leaders of the other 27 eu member states. it will ensure our departure on the 29th of march next year. there is a political declaration unambitious future partnership on national interest. it is the right deal for britain because it is for the british people. it takes back control of our borders. it ends the free movement of people allowing the government
to introduce a new skills-based immigration system. it takes back control of our laws. it ends the jurisdiction justice in the u.k. madead, our laws will be in our parliament and enforced by our court. it takes back control of our money. it ends the payments we sent to brussels. instead, we could spend taxpayer money on our own priorities, including the 394 million pounds intok of extra investment long-term plans for the national health service. like creating a new free trade , fees,th no tariffs charges, restrictions, or rules of origins, it will protect jobs, including those that will allow integrated supply chains. onll have close relationship defense and terrorism which will keep our people safe. it attacks the integrity of the united kingdom.
it will deliver for the whole u.k. family, including our overseas territories. gibraltar, wen worked constructively and i want to be tribute to the chief minister of gibraltar. for his statesmanship in these negotiations. we have ensured that gibraltar is covered by the whole withdrawal agreement and the implementation period. partnership, we want for the whole u.k. family, including gibraltar. weekend, everys aspect is the response of the united kingdom was agreed with the government of gibraltar. we are together in this as we have another aspects of this to your period of negotiation. legal textantly, the
of the agreement has not been changed. that is what the spanish government repeatedly thought, but they had that achieve that. the united kingdom has not let us down. mr. speaker, our message to the people of gibraltar is clear -- we will always stand by you. we are proud to bulger is british and our position on sovereignty has not and will not are proud gibraltar is british and our position on sovereignty has not and will not change. we will leave the european union in a smooth and orderly way. it protects the citizens living in the u.k. and those living in the eu so they can carry on living their lives as before. it delivers the time implemented the liberation period to give us time to prepare for the arrangements. trade will continue on current terms so businesses only have to face one set of changes. it ensures a fair settlement of financial obligations. less than half of some
expectations. there will be no hard border between northern ireland and ireland and no customs border in the irish the. in the event the future relationship is not ready by the end of the implementation period. mr. speaker some members remain concerned that we could find ourselves stuck in the backstop. let me address this directly. this is an insurance policy no one wants to use it both the u.k. and the eu are fully -- but the u.k. and eu are fully committed to having our future relationship in place right in january 2020 one. the withdrawal agreement has a legal duty on both sides to expect endeavors to avoid the backstop coming in. future relationship is not ready by the end of 2020, we would not be forced to use the backstop. we would have a clear chance between the back shop or short into the implementation period.
if we use the backstop, it would be temporary and the article legal base cannot provide for permanent relationship. there is more flexibility that it can be superseded i future relationships or by alternative relationships which include the andntial for arrangement technologies to avoid hard border on the island of ireland. the backstop can be turned off when we have filled our women on the northern island border. there is a right to trigger a review for the joint committee and the ability to end arbitration if the eu does not use good faith in this process. furthermore, as a result of the changes, the legal text is now clear that once the backstop has been superseded, it shall cease to apply. if a feature parliament decided to into a deep trade relationship, the backstop could
not return. mr. speaker, i do not pretend that either we or the eu are entirely happy with these arrangements. that is how it must be. were either party entirely happy, that party would have no incentive to move on to the future relationship. there is no alternative deal that honors our commitment to northern island which is not involve this insurance policy. the eu would not have agreed any future partnership without it. there is no deal that comes without a backstop and without a backstop, there is no deal. the withdrawal agreement is accompanied by a political declaration what sets up the scope in terms of a future relationship between the u.k. and the eu. it is a detailed set of instructions to negotiators that will be used to deliver a legal agreement on our future relationship after we have left. there is a withdrawal agreement and a declaration that requires both sides to use best endeavors
to get the legal text great and implemented by the end of 2020. both sides are committed to make preparations for the negotiations after our withdrawal. it contains specific details of future economic relationships. this includes a new free trade area with no tariffs, fears, quantity of restrictions, or rules of origin checks. an economic relationship and no other major economy has aired it includes -- has. etoncludes going beyond of -- wto. it includes new arrangements for the financial sector, ensure they cannot withdrawal on a whim and gives certainty to the leading industry. to be sure that we will leave eu programs that do not work in our interest. of a policy that fills our farmers and coastal
communities -- that failed our farmers and coastal communities. we will be an independent and coastal state once again aired we will take back. in control of our borders again. we will take back control of our sovereign borders. the eu has maintained throughout makeprocess they wanted to overall access to markets and access to fisheries. they failed in the withdrawal agreement and failed again in the political declaration. it is no prize some are trying to lay down workers again to the future relationship. they should be getting used to the answer by now, it is not going to happen. finally, the declaration is clear. whatever is agreed in the future partnership must recognize the development of an independent trade. in 40 years, time
the u.k. will be able to find new trade dealers and open new markets for goods and services in the fastest-growing economies around the world. the future, relationship also includes a comprehensive new security partnership with law enforcement and judicial corporations to keep all of our people safe. at the outset, we were told that being outside the area, we would be treated like any other non-eu state on security. this includes arrangements for data exchange on name records, fingerprints, and vehicle registration data as well as extradition arrangements. sharingto the way of information included in databases of wanted and missing persons and criminal records. and complexn a long
negotiation. it has required give and take on both sides and that is the nature of a negotiation. this deal on is the result of the referendum while providing close economic and security relationship with our nearest neighbors and in so doing offers a brighter future for the british people outside of the eu. i can say to the house with certainty there is not a better deal available and my fellow clear on thatery themselves yesterday. our duty as a parliament over the coming weeks is to examine the deal in detail, debate it ourectfully, listen to constituents and decide what is in our national interest. there is a choice will have to make the weekend back the deal and deliver on the voter referendum and build a brighter future of prosperity for all people or this house can choose to reject this deal and go back
to square one because no one knows what would happen if this deal doesn't pass. it would open the door to more division and uncertainty with entail.risks that would i believe our national interest is clear. the british people want us to get on with the deal but honor the referendum and allow this to as a countrygether whichever way we voted. this is that deal, a deal that delivers for the fish people and i commend it. thank you, mr. speaker. i think the prime minister for the advance copy of her statements. to sellnister may wants the summit as a great success, but to borrow a phrase, the reality is nothing has changed. the prime minister says if we reject this deal it will take us
back to square one. the truth is, under this government, we never got beyond square one. the deal is a bad deal for this country. yesterday did was marked the end of this governments failed and miserable negotiations. there can be no doubt this deal would leave us with the worst of all worlds, no say over future rules and no certainty for the future. even the prime minister's own cabinet cannot bring themselves to sell this deal. mitigates most of the negative impact of the endorsement. know these negotiations have failed and they know it will leave britain were soft. the national institute for research confirm this today,
saying the prime ministers deal would mean our economy would be 3.9% smaller than it would otherwise be. this is more than our net contributions to the european union which is currently 8.9 billion dollars a year, around 170 million per week. why is the prime minister claiming that extra minor -- money to the nhs will be due to brexit dividends? we look forward to the official treasury forecast and the legal advice this house voted nearly two weeks ago. the prime minister's claim this deal takes back control of our borders, money, and laws is a fallacy. the reality is the opposite. the prime minister says it should give us comfort that a backstop of be needed, but in june 2020, this country will be
can agree a choice we to extend the transition period or accept the backstop. can the prime minister confirm that under her deal if we are to avoid the backstop we will have to accept whatever the european union to man's to extend -- demands to extend? leave is a choice to pay more money without a say on the rules or a backstop leading to a regulatory board down i were see. -- sea. mr. speaker, it may not end there. the president of france has made clear what his priorities will forn negotiating britain future deal. he said, we will concentrate our efforts to obtain access to the waters before the end of the transition period. all of our fishermen will be
protected. is it the case that under the prime minister's botched deal, we will have to agree to those demands on waters if we want to finalize a feature trade deal or extend the transition? breaking every promise the prime minister, the environment secretary made to the fishing industry and our coastal communities. case thattar, is it a spain now has a role over gibraltar benefiting from any future relationships? that is still to be negotiated, not something the prime minister submitted last week. mr. speaker, this house will begin voting on a legally binding withdrawal agreement and a wish list contained in the declaration. the prime minister would be negotiating that future
agreement from a position of profound weakness, paying more to extend the transition with no say over our money, laws, or borders and at risk for the unacceptable backstop which was only made necessary by her own red lines, most of which have since been abandoned by her. in a national interest for the prime minister to plow on when it is clear this deal does not have the support of either side of this house or the country as a whole? mr. speaker, plowing on is not stoic, it is an act of national self harm. instead of threatening this house with a no deal scenario or a no breaks it scenario, the prime minister now needs to repair a plan b, something her predecessor failed to do. deal, a sensible deal
that could win the support of this house based on a comprehensive customs union, a strong single market deal that --tects >> i made it clear she should be heard and she was. this yelling from a sedentary position, stop it here and it is rude, foolish, and doomed to fail. >> thank you, mr. speaker. >> there is a sensible deal that would win this house based on a constant's -- customs union, a strong single market deal that text work and environmental and consumer safeguards. the prime minister may have achieved agreement across 27 heads of state, but she lost support of the country. many young people and others see opportunities being taken away from them. voted voted for
an inclusive society and they feared this deal and they fear the rhetoric of the prime minister and promoting this deal. likewise, many people from areas voted feel this deal has betrayed the brexit they voted for. it does not take that control and will not make them better off, and it will not solve the economic deprivation that affects far too many communities and towns and cities. this deal is not a plan for britain's future. for the good of the nation, the files -- house has very little choice but to reject this deal. prime minister may: thank you mr. speaker. just to pick up on what he made, he commented on the brexit dividends and where they go. we have been very clear that we will be able to use that money
that we are not sending to the european union to spend on our priorities, including the national health service. there was a time when the honorable gentleman himself talked about spending the brexit dividends for our public services. he talked about the backstop and the limitation period being the alternative. we have written in the , thebility of alternatives key is no hard border between northern ireland and ireland have a witchy dismissed in his response to our statement. -- which he dismissed in his response to our statement. he talked about control of noters and said our deal is going to control the borders, but it does because it brings an end to free movement once and for all. i know the labour party has never been able to actually stand up and say it wants to bring an end to free movement
once and for all, and that is their not responding to the real needs and returns of the british people on these issues. the british people want control of borders and the end of free movement and this deal delivered this. he talked about labor market policy and a single market. i hear yes from the bench. there was also a time when the right honorable gentleman talked about the importance of having an independent trade policy and negotiating our trade deals. he has gone back on his word in relation to these issues. he talked about the comments int president macron made access to borders. i recognize this has raised question from people about the issue in relation being in the backstop your for all of those concerned and for all of those who have commented on this, i think it is important to recall
that if we were in the backstop, we would be outside the common fisheries policy and we would be deciding who has access to fish in our water. mentioned gibraltar. i quoted the chief minister, who made very clear as i did that this government stood by gibraltar and we resisted changes to the withdrawal agreement which the spanish government wished to make. we are clear that gibraltar and its sovereignty will not change. and will notanged change but we are proud that gibraltar is british. about dealinglked with issues of our economy and those parts of the country where we do need to enhance and improve our economy. i have to say to him, the one thing that is clear and will never deliver for our economy is his policy on borrowing, taxing,
and spending to balance the economy. smith --n duncan >> mr. speaker, can i recognize my right honorable gentleman and return her to the point about the backstop. does she recognize the genuine and real concern held on all sides of the house about what would happen if the u.k. was to be forced into the backstop? listen careful to what my right honorable friend said, she said the u.k. doesn't want it, the eu doesn't want it, and we heard that ireland said that no matter what agreement, they would never have any hard border. it makes you wonder, why is it in the withdrawal agreement at all? the question is this -- if the roadnment going down the toward negotiation is heading
towards that point when the backstop will become invoked, does that not generally mean that mr. macron is right that we will come under total pressure to agree almost to anything to yvoid our entry into what m honorable friend says we never want to be in? myme minister may: to honorable friend, i do recognize the concern that has been and remains on the issue of the backstop your i disagree about the position that we entail. as i indicated in my statement, -- that we are in this position and we have recognition there could be alternative arrangements to the backstop or the extension of the implementation period with the border of northern island. it is right that while i recognize the concern that this
is not a situation the u.k. wants us to be in, neither is it a situation the european union wants us to be in. the reason is, although as strange as it may seem, there are members of the european union who think the backstop would be a good place for the u.k. because of its access to the european markets without having financial obligation and without free movement. that is why they don't want us to be in a backstop either. neither wants to invoke it. we want to ensure the future relationship replaces it and delivers commitment to the people. >> thank you, mr. speaker. >> the prime minister's deal means scotland is to be taken out of the union against our will and out of the single market, a market that has a for the u.k. and scotland voted for
it. standards and ending freedom of movement, something to obtainmake it hard the staff we need. it has been good for scotland. aboutime minister talks eu citizens coming here we are she plainly disregards the rights that we will all lose to live and work. we are not prepared to give up these rights. the prime minister's view with the majority -- carries no majority in this house and must split. no long-term agreement on the trading relationship and it is a deal full of s and --
ifs and buts. here we are with another sellout to the scottish fishing industry. .e have been here before we have been sold out by governments. agreement, fishing registered in northern ireland told continue to gain access eu markets. the fishing boat registered in scotland and other parts of the u.k. would not. we know the eu will start negotiations. mr. speaker, that is not taking back control of our waters. it is exercising an effective veto. again byeen duped once the conservatives. this selloutept from the conservatives.
i call upon the secretary of state. search our conscious because your fingerprints are all over this. after leaving the eu, it could be extended by one or two years. does the prime minister except that means the u.k. would almost no rights for another one or two years? dealrime minister says the ends uncertainty. it does not and uncertainty for the fishing sector or the state of the economy which faces years of turbulence. talkmr. speaker, the way scot's interest have been dismissed by
the u.k. government demonstrates the real cost of not being an independent country able to make our own decisions. speaker, we will continue to work across parties to put in place a deal that works for scotland, and we will support another referendum on eu membership. >> thank you. i will address the two main points. he mentioned the question of migration. i think it is important that we deliver on what people voted for. they felt it was not right that people had a right to come here, were freely able to move your based on the country they came from, rather than their contribution to the united kingdom. we will be able to put in place
a still face immigration system based on people's skills and contribution to our economy. e majority ofe his comments to the fishing economy. the real sellout of scottish fishermen is a policy to stay in. who is it who has been standing up for scottish fishermen in this house? conservatives. all the scottish nationalist is stay in thedo common fisheries policy. that would be a sellout of scottish fishermen. if the european union really intends, in good faith to rapidly negotiate the future trade agreement, why can we not make the second half of the 39.5
billion payment on condition of delivery? aware, fromend is they negotiations we held, 39 billion has been determined in relation to our legal obligation.i think it is important that as a country , we are a country that stands up to our legal obligations. there is a timetable for these payments spread over a period of time. of this isnt ensuring we are able to have that implementation. to ensure businesses only have to make one set of changes. by refusing to make choices now about our future economic relationship with the european union, and what the prime minister has done is to put off
the moment when we will have to make those choices to a time when the eu will have much greater leverage over this country because any future trade agreement will require the unanimous approval of every european member states. how can the prime minister expects the house to vote to put the country in such a weak position? is this not the biggest failure of this negotiation? >> i am sure you are very well aware of the possession that the european union cannot find a trade agreement -- we are looking for that free trade area being at the heart of our economic future. the european union is not able to find that and develop the legal text for that until we have withdrawn from the european union. setting out details of our future relationship, the political declaration does just that and makes it very clear
is the set ofthis instructions that the future relationship will put into place what is in the political declaration. stands, therently majority of honorable and right honorable members in this place will not vote in favor of the prime minister's deal, despite her very best efforts. she needs plan b. what is the prime minister's plan b? is that norway plus of the single market, the customs union, which some of us have been arguing for for over two years? throughout the last 18 months of negotiations, people have said to me it was not going to be possible for me to be able to negotiate a deal with the european union. no sooner do i negotiate a deal
then people are saying, what is the next thing you are going to do? we will havesness, a number of days of debate in this chamber prior to the meaningful vote on this deal. i believe it is important that when people look at this deal and come to that vote, they consider the interests of this country, their constituents, the importance of delivering on brexit. now that the prime minister has decided to launch a public debate on her plans, should she not move beyond her comfort zone of debating with brexit fellow travelers like the labour party, and engage with a much larger trust a party coalition in favor of the people's vote with of the new european union? will she not debate with of the real opposition?
he and his honorable friends have asked me the question about the people's vote on a number of occasions. my answer has not changed. i believe it is important, having given the choice of the british people, that we now deliver on the choice of the british people. there is a difference of opinion between myself and him. i think ther majority of the british people want us to get on. does the prime minister appreciate that the withdrawal withment is incompatible 2018 which expressly repeals the whole of the european 972? in this event, we will truly regain our laws. does the prime minister accept that this agreement, being only
a treaty, overrides the statutory provisions of the 2018 act, and is therefore a immortal? the advice of the attorney general? i make two points. the first is the withdrawal act. one thing it does is bring european union law into u.k. law such as there is a smooth and orderly transition when we leave the european union. the withdrawal agreement will be implanted in our legislation through the withdrawal agreement act. >> the prime minister says in her statement, the legal text is not also clear that once the backstop has been superseded, it shall cease to apply. we need accuracy.
the article says the backstop can be superseded in whole or part, that chelsea's to apply in whole or part. we need accuracy because it is the legal text that matters. this is what will bind the country. will the prime minister tell us as the chancellor has rightly said that the backstop is bad for the union, that for the economy? can you tell us what is so bad for the union? the part of the backstop that is bad for the european union -- sorry, for the united kingdom, this is what we want to be able to do, is in the future to be able to have our independent trade policy. one of the issues is whether or not we will be able to do that. that is one of the issues we were not want to see in us continuing to be and the backstop for.
congratulate my right honorable friend on beginning her campaign to sell this deal to the country with the frank admission just now that it is unsatisfactory. that may be a bit of an understatement, but it is very hard to see how this deal can provide certainty to business or to anyone else when you have half the cabinet going around reassuring business that the a deal tout together remain in the custom steel and single market. the prime minister herself continuing to say that we are going to take back control of our deals and do real free-trade deals. they can't both be right. which is it? what i said in my statement was that neither we nor the eu
were entirely happy with the backstop arrangements put in place. that is accurate. i've referenced one reason why we are not happy with it, and earlier and answers why the european union are not happy with it. recognize that concerned that has been expressed about our ability to negotiate free trade deals on the basis of the arrangement we are putting in place with of the european union. we will be able to negotiate those free-trade deals. i think every member of this house should be aware that windows trade deals are being considered, there will be issues that this house will want to consider, which will be nothing to do with whether or not we have a particular relationship with the european union. this house will to consider animal welfare standards, environmental standards. these are the issues which members of this house will want to consider when they look at those free-trade deals. it is absolutely clear we will be able to negotiate those
free-trade deals with the relationship being proposed. >> this isn't a deal for the future. we don't know whether this means checkers or canada or norway or an endless backstop or massive downgrade. we have no idea where this is heading and other countries are already saying that this gives them more leverage because it reduces our negotiating power. happened to say that this is in the future interest of the country? used to say that nothing is a great until everything was agreed. when did she change her mind? i want to point out that what this political declaration does is set out very clearly the basis for the future relationship we will be having on security and economic arrangements with the european union. it also sets up clearly that the
clear intent of both parties to develop good faith agreements giving effect to this relationship. does is not about some other sort of relationship. it is about what is in this document. she asked whether it was canada or norway, i said at the beginning we should get away from thinking on the shelf models that exist already. what is being proposed here and acknowledged from the european union is the relationship of unprecedented debt not being offered to any other major advanced economy. it is a relationship that shows we are not just another country. will she agreed that this agreement could cost a lot more than 39 billion as there are limits or figures in it and lots especially if, the eu goes as slow on the next phase of negotiations as the last lot and drag us into permanent transition at the norm is cost. arean i say that there
clauses within this withdrawal agreement in relation to the endeavors both sides will make to reach an agreement by the end of the implementation period in december 2020, that make it clear that action can be taken if either side drags its feet and the way they are talking about. minister is not suggesting that compared with staying in the european union, her brexit proposal would mean that our country would be economically better off, if she? -- is she? >> the question as to our future at home, no. i do believe we can be economically better off outside the european union. the problem is, there are those who think the only factor that determines how well off we are in the future is whether or not we are a member of the european union. i differ. our future is in our hands. and will be our decision in many areas that will determine our prosperity for the future.
>> nobody can doubt the prime minister has tried her very best. are we not nonetheless being asked to take a huge gamble here, paying, leaving, surrendering our vote and veto without any firm commitments to frictionless trade or the absolute rights to dismantle external tariffs? is it really wise to trust the future of our economy to a pledge simply to use best endeavors? the position in relation to the nature of the principal declaration is exactly what i set out in response to the question of the chairman of the eu selects committee which is that it is not possible for us to sign the legal treaty with the european union until we are
outside the european union. the prime minister was told very clearly last november that any backstop would not be acceptable. she has carried on with allowing it to be put in. not only is it in, it is in and away that we cannot actually get out of it unless the eu allows us. as that really not giving back sovereignty to our country, to the people who voted to leave? >> as i said in my statement, the position is very simple. there is no withdrawal agreement without a backstop. without a backstop, there is no deal. that is because of the commitment of both sides wanted to the people of northern ireland to ensure there was no hard border between northern ireland and ireland. any other agreement on trade with the european union would have a backstop. debate has seen
false promises made to the public from all sides, and from all parties. democracy only works when it can be based on a debate of truth and honesty in fact. how does the prime minister assure the house that this debate we are about to have now on her deal is based on facts and evidence and not more false promises to the british people, subsequently,ken will damage trust in our democracy even more? we are committed as a government to publishing .nalysis of this deal as if she is aware, there are others looking at the economic aspects as well. i'm tempted to say this, she asks whether this can be based on fact. adjusting would be an debate for the south to the extent at which economic forecasts can be described as fact. can i thank the prime
minister for the efforts she made personally on behalf of my constituent, matthew hedges, who has been released this morning. news in the midst of this brexit mess. if she is so confident that the public supports this deal, why doesn't she asked them? -- ask them? >> i have responded to the question about this second referendum issue before. it is very simple. i think it is absolutely right that this house and politicians should see it as a duty to implement the vote that the british people gave to leave the european union. >> when she describes the functioning of heard free-trade
area, it sounds awfully like the comprehensive customs union. can she be absolutely clear where we are headed? will we never reached the point where there are customs declarations? >> my friend is well aware of the position the government takes, which is that we will be working for frictionless trade. , as he will see the references are for an ambitious agreement in relation to the restriction of checks. obviously, there is a balance between the rights of frictionless access against the obligation. that is set out quite clearly in the document as mountable friend knows. the government set out its position in the summer. >> the prime minister says a majority of people want her to get on with brexit. that isn't true. it might be an inconvenient fact, but the truth is a majority do want a people vote.
when she is giving her tour around the country -- >> order. the honorable lady is entitled to ask her question without being consistently shouted at. i thought we were talking about respect in the chamber. try remembering it. care, and i want to hear the honorable lady and the response. >> thank you. we have heard the prime minister is planning to tour the country. why doesn't she try listening to the public rather than having a stage-managed opportunity. why can't people actually have a chance to have their say in a people's vote? if she really trust them, she would do it. >> i have answered the question of the people's vote earlier. i do listen to the public. is, get onlming view
with it and do what the vote says. the conservative manifesto at the last election promised to deliver the lead vote by leaving the single market, leaving the customs union. believe that this document does not deliver that. it also is a clear breach of the principal consent of the belfast agreement and will cost us 39 billion. across the house including myself intend to vote against the steel, at this late stage, will the prime minister acknowledge, that the obstacle of an old marriage border, is a technology the current techniques. will she therefore please look
to a comprehensive free-trade deal with our solutions to the northern ireland border? >> at the heart of this political declaration and partnership is a comprehensive free-trade deal. it is a better deal than canada. in the prime minister's is smooth and orderly the new strong and stable? is smooth and orderly exit is what business wants. there is one thing on which we can all agree. when we come to vote on this in two weeks time, this will be about the most important thing that those of us in this house will ever vote upon in our entire lives.
telegraph a description of this deal as a surrender. i'm afraid it is. knows in her is that you dry than the spanish are off the gibraltar. >> order. sit-down. let me say to members around the right honorable gentleman, including some that think they will be called to ask a question. don't sit or heckling your colleague. he has a right to be heard. if you don't like it, listen with courtesy and silence. if that is that bad for you, you are welcome to leave the chamber. the right honorable chamber will be heard. amen. and a subject. the prime minister and the whole house knows the mathematics. this will never get through. even if it did, they do you k
willp have said they review the confidence and supply agreement. i plead with you, the house of commons has never surrendered to anybody, and it won't start now. as ican reassure you referenced in my statement in relation to gibraltar, the united kingdom has not surrendered in those matters that he has referred to. he talked about the spanish position on gibraltar, the spanish have always had that position. he talked about the french wanting our fish. as people know, french fishermen have long been wanting fish in our borders. in theey did want to do political declaration was to link that access to our borders, to access markets in relation to trade.
we resisted that and continue resisting that, and resisted that in the documents themselves. we will continue to resist that and continue on gibraltar. the prime minister deserves some sympathy trying to drum up that divided model behind her. tter is, it a ma is not going to happen. she is not going to get the majority in this house for this deal because it would leave the british people worse off. a growing concern now is that many of my constituents were asked to assert parliamentary supremacy on this, which you mentioned. >> you talk about elementary
supremacy. it was as parliament that decided overwhelmingly to ask the british people on their review of our membership of the european union. they voted and gave that view, and i believe it is our duty to deliver on that. may i think my right honorable friend for making three statements to the house of commons in 10 days. question, the prime minister has said we have a legal obligation to pay 39 billion pounds. awonder if she is forgetting law that set in the event of leaving without a deal, we have no money at all. therefore, what are we buying with 39 billion pounds of taxpayer money? >> can i assure my friend that i have not forgotten the house of lords report, but there is a different opinion. that opinion is that there are legal obligations that this country would hold to the european union in relation to
financial payments in any circumstances. i think itd before, is important that we are a country that upholds our legal obligations. >> tomorrow, i will be part of a group of scottish parliamentarians from the s&p, labour party and scottish green party who are going to the courts of justice in luxembourg to establish if it would be possible for this parliament to tell the prime minister to revoke her article 50 notice. does she said my sense of pride that it will be scottish parliamentarian and scottish court that will give this parliament a two alternative to her deeply flawed deal? i know she has consistently raised this issue of the revocation of article 50. as a she knows, it is not going to happen because it is not government policy. the prime minister said in
her statements that her deal will protect jobs. can i ask her which region or regions of the united kingdom will be more prosperous with higher productivity and higher gdp per capita than they will under present arrangement within the eu? >> the answer to that question is the extent to which we are able to enhance the prosperity and number of jobs in regions of the united kingdom depends on a whole variety of decisions taken by this government. 3.3 million jobs have already been created. if my friend remembers, the budget that was given in november, he will also have heard the predictions that 800,000 jobs will be created over the next period of years in this country. the prime minister has been
very clear this afternoon that she doesn't think it is right that the public having had a vote to leave the public union, should have a say on what happens next on the deal she has done. can she confirm that if this shee votes down her deal, will not seek to force a second vote on this deal, or will he itd out as the dup have that is also for her and no safe or anyone else? >> i will be working to ensure and persuade members of this house that this is the deal that is on the table. this is a deal that delivers on the vote of the british people and it does so while protecting jobs, our security and our united kingdom. will she recalled how much we both hope so much that i would be able to support whatever the
prime minister brought back from her negotiations? can i say how said i am? i cannot possibly support this deal that pays a 39 billion pounds sibley to kick the can down the road. possibly agree to an arrangement economic where we have the unilateral right to leave the european union, but no such unilateral right to leave these new arrangements will to will be subject to an eu the go --veto. looking at the future treaty arrangements, which will cover security partnership and economic partnership, i would expect that as in any trade agreements, they would be appropriate arrangements for review and for the question of the potential termination of those relationships.
iris p the point that i've made previously. i think it would be wrong for this house to believe that there were no legal obligations to pay money to the european union that the united kingdom has on leaving. there are legal obligations to pay money to the european union. i think it is important that we abide by those obligations. the national institute of economic and social research published a report today that would makethis deal the u.k. 100 billion pounds worse off by 20 19. reallyprime minister believes the majority of the u.k. wants that outcome, can i suggest that she is not knocking on enough doors? will she commit to giving the nation a final say on the exact terms of her deal? i have responded on a number
of occasions this afternoon on the question of a second referendum. morning, the chancellor told the today program that as the u.k. is split down the middle over the anything that, looks like one half of the country winning and the other half losing would be disastrous. in that case, may i ask, does the prime minister agree with him, and if so, what was the point of holding the referendum in the first place? i think the point is a very simple one. now is the time for this country to come back together again. it is a time for us to recognize that in delivering on the brexit deal that the people voted for
the016, we are meeting instruction we were given by people in a referendum. we are doing it in this deal and a way that protects jobs and livelihoods and our united kingdom. now is the time for the country to come back together and get back behind the steel and ensure we can build a better future for all. last week, the prime minister managed to insult and upset over 3 million european citizens who live and work in this country. over 150,000 of them, like my german husband, a gp here for over 30 years felt absolutely thrown away when they have spent decades here looking after us when we are ill. will the prime minister take this opportunity perhaps, to apologize for her thoughtless and insulting comments? i should not have used that
language in that speech. the point i was making was a simple one. i may say to her, right from the very beginning i said that citizens rights was a key issue i wanted to see addressed in the withdrawal agreement. that was one of the things we put at the top is one of our priorities and have delivered that in the withdrawal agreement. can i also say, that i think the broader point that for most people here in the u k, they want to see people coming to this country with the skills of wanted to make a contribution. her husband has made a contribution as a gp in this country. they want people to be judged as we will on their skills and contribution to our economy, rather than simply on where they come from. it is the easiest thing
in the world for people to criticize a deal they haven't written and for people to remain in their entrenched positions they have been in for the last few years. the braver thing and right thing for this country now it is to challenge ourselves on our views of brexit, to step up to the plate as elected representatives and to give this deal the scrutiny that it needs. to realize that what will cost us far more than 39 billion pounds is a no deal brexit. i think this was the point thatwas made very well, this is a very important note for this country. that is why when people come to debate this topic and vote on this topic, i hope they will atk, as she has said, look the details of the deal, recall the need to deliver for the deal foreople on the
brexit and also our constituents jobs and livelihood for the future. debates in this house are all about serious matters, but this in an announcer: after approving the brexit plan, they spoke to reporters. here is a look. today, the european council on the agreement for the withdrawal of the united kingdom of great britain and northern ireland from the european union and the community. the european council and the commission, the european parliament, and the council took the necessary steps to ensure can happen onment march 30, 2019