tv British Prime Minister May Delivers Statement on Brexit Extension CSPAN April 15, 2019 12:41am-1:43am EDT
-- june 1st without a >> thank you for the statements from the prime minister. prime minister may: i would like to make a statement, but before i do, i am sure they will welcome the news this morning that metropolitan police have arrested julian assange, who has been hiding the last seven years, also in the extradition request from the united states. this is now a legal matter before the courts. the secretary will make a statement on this later, but i would like to thank the team for carrying out their duties with great professionalism.
and to welcome the cooperation of the ecuadorian government. this goes to show that nobody is above the law in the united kingdom. turning to counsel, my priority is to deliver brexit and do so in an orderly way to not disrupt people's lives. i continue to believe we need to meet the european union with a and to soon as possible avoid a no deal. we have not so far been able to vote for a deal. i have requested an extension and critically i've also requested and beyond the gratification but specifically to lead the eu without the
-- without having to hold parliamentary elections and the discussions of the council many of the european partners that -- share the deep frustration. there was a range of news with -- of views about the extension with a large number hoping for the end of this year into the next. in the end was a compromise and an extension lasting into october. critically as i requested they agreed that this extension could be terminated when the agreement has been ratified. if we were to pass the deal by the 22nd of may and when the eu is ratified we can leave on the 31st. at 11:00 p.m. on the 31st of
may. in short to the date of our departure in the parliamentary elections remains a decision for this house. during this time, a cause of action is entirely in the uk's hands. in agreeing this extension, there was some discussion on the council about conditions imposed on the u.k. for e.u. membership during this period and i argued against it. there is only a single tear of membership with no condition attached beyond those treaty obligations. the council conclusions are clear that during the course the course of the extension the u.k. will continue to hold full membership rights. the u.k. will continue to be bound by all obligations as a member state including the duty of cooperation. the united kingdom has a constructive role on the world stage and we always will because that's the kind of country we
are. the choices we face are dark, we much reach a consensus on the deal that is in the national interest. withcome the discussion the opposition in recent days. this is not the normal way of british politics and it is uncomfortable for many to reach an agreement. it will not be easy because it will require compromising. however challenging it may be, politically, i believe in this unique situation where the house is deadlocked, we have to seek to work together what the -- to deliver what the british people voted for. they expect their politicians to do just that.
when the national interest demands it. i hope we can reach an agreement on a single unified approach to give to the house for approval -- but if we can't that we will seek to a small number of options in a series of votes and determine which course to pursue. as i have made clear before, the government stands by the decision of the house to where the opposition would agree and we could bring forward the withdrawal agreement bill. this bill will take time to pass through both houses. we need to start this process, too. it could also provide a useful forum. crucially, any agreement on the future relationship may involve a number of additions and
clarifications for political declarations. i am pleased that the european council responded on my update by agreeing that the european council is prepared to reconsider the declaration on the future relationship with its principles stated in its guidelines. the withdraw agreement itself could not be reopened the whole -- could not be reopened. the whole country is intensely frustrated. i never wanted to seek this extension and i deeply regret we have not secured agreement in this house to leave in a smooth and orderly way. it is putting members under all sides of the house in an immense pressure and causing uncertainty across the country. we need to resolve this.
here is the opportunity that will have to be made specifically on our return after easter so to leave the european union and avoid having parliamentary elections and also fulfill the democratic decision of a referendum to move our country forward. this is our national duty. pressingoday is more or vital. >> thank you, mister speaker. i would like to thank the prime minister. you agree to grant the united kingdom in article 50 extension through the 31st of october. meaning they will have to start the process of holding european narrates in a next her -- in an extraordinary situation not knowing what they will do or for how long. this has come just three weeks after the prime minister told the house she was not prepared
to the labor exit any longer than the 30th of june. it represents not only diplomatic failure but another milestone of the mishandling of the government the entire -- the mishandling of government of the entire process. one third of her party voted against her own policy during the short delay and with that cabinet members exchange. cabinet members also confirm they requested on tuesday for the eu to reopen withdrawal agreement and it's also been rebuffed. the prime minister stuck rigidly to a floor plan and the club has run down leaving britain in limbo and adding to the deep uncertainty of his this, workers and people all across this country. i welcome the prime minister finally decided to reach out to the opposition last week to try
to find a breakthrough. the fact that the invitation didn't even come at the 11th hour but at five past midnight three days after she admits to deadline on the 29th of march is a reflection of the government's fundamental error in not preceding by consensus. however, mr. speaker, i can report the talks now taking place within the opposition and government are serious, detailed and ongoing and have have that constructive engagement that we have had. i also welcomed the indications from the government they could be willing to be in those k loan -- those key areas to be supported on the side of the house. if the talks are a success resulting in an agreement that will bring our country back together the government will , have to compromise. that is why it is with
disappointment that i read the letter this week in what seems to be an attempt to scuffle meaningful talks for the labor customs unions proposal which i might add is supported as well and leading trade unions in this country. it is a proposal eu leaders and the irish just yesterday said is both credible and negotiable. labor will continue to proceed constructively in talks because we expect the results of the referendum and we are committed jobs industry and living standards by delivering a close economic relationship with the european union with new improved rights and standards. if that is not possible, we believe all options should remain on the table including a
public vote. mr. speaker, we see no advantage in the proposal from the secretary of state of international trade to create distance and divergence with our trading relationship with our largest trading partner. also bear inst mind that after a deal list past the current prime minister said she will step down. we have no idea who may succeed her. so with that in mind, because we have to infringe any agreement, because some of those already throwing their hats into the ring have said they would scrap the human rights act and rip up burdensome regulations or even leave without any deal at all. some on the conservative benches want nothing more than to use brexit to create a race to the bottom.
u.s. big pharma companies and hormone treated beef on our plates. workers rights in consumer standards. -- and consumer standards. and to have the u.k. become a virtual tax haven on the shores of europe. let me be clear to the prime minister and the country. labor will not support any deal thatwill leave us open to future of this country. it is incumbent on all of us not to find a way forward in -- and we must continue to talk to each other and even at this late real line must move and we must seek real compromise. to find a deal that can command not only the support of
this house but more importantly the support of the public across this country. prime minister may: thank you, mister speaker. the talks are serious and detailed and being taken forward in a constructive fashion. talks at an earlier stage recently. but i'm pleased we are now able to sit down in this way. he raised the issue about the european parliament. members in this house voted with the majority to agree to withdraw agreements on the 29th of march.
he also talked about the need to protect the jobs industry and living standards. that is what we have been able to do with the deal that we agreed with the european union. not just in relation to the deal. actually, it is this government that is -- has presided over record levels of people. he talked about the future relationship and the need to entrench assets of the future relationship. the government said we would accept the amendment that was put down by the honorable member. which would require parliament to have that role in looking at the future relationship and the negotiating objectives for the future. in a government -- and a government -- any government
will have to ensure they are taking parliament with them in agreeing that future relationship. on the issue of coming together in an agreement, i am not prepared just to accept labor's readyes, but they are not to accept our policies. this takes compromise on both sides. that is what we are doing seriously, find a way that enables this has to ensure that there is a deal to commence a majority so we can lead the toopean union, fulfill able the british people in 2016 in the referendum and do so in a way that does protect jobs and living standards of industry. >> lead the country through to the conclusion of the process and ignore some of the vicious
of talks being made -- vicious attacks being made. can i also ask given that she rightly points out the national interest is to reach a settlement between the government and the principal opposition party on the best way forward, can she indicate it is clear that the minimum that requires is some sort of customs arrangement and sufficient regulator he -- regulatory tradingt to keep our open as it has been across the channel in the republic of ireland and can she negotiate that so it does actually bind any successor of government in future negotiations? as we look to that future relationship, we are looking at the customs arrangement that
would be in place in the future relationship and we have already indicated that we want to retain the benefits of those rules of origin checks and thought -- and it is not possible for the european union to negotiate that trading until we are out of the -- that treaty until we are out of the european union. in terms of having to clarify what is in the political declaration and the position of the u.k. government, the eu council has said they would be willing to look at additions and clarification to that political declaration.
we can remain in the european union. mr. speaker, there were a total of 133 days between the 1997 general election in the referendum. as of today, there are 240 days. there is not excuse to hold a second referendum. we should not be forced to accept any brexit deal that will harm. we have put the decision to the people.
the party requested a second referendum in the talks. asking to end the movement and the price of their support for a deal. [indistinct chatter] get their heads out of the sand. prime minister may: thank you, honorable gentleman. the government has not offered a second referendum. the issue on that issue has not
changed. when legislation goes through, i'm sure there will be members of this house. believe and continue to believe it is not an excuse about timing, we have to live on the first referendum. and believe the results of that. if he is so interested in referenda, the question is -- [indistinct chatter] >> yes or no? >> does the prime minister appreciate the inker -- the anger generated across the country?
promises 100 times next to extend. -- not to extend. the she agreed undermines our democracy -- does she agree it undermines our democracy? it undermines our national interest? >> i think you -- prime minister may: i think you know the answer to that. i do not recognize those that have been put forward before the house. i believe we have negotiated a good deal for the u.k.. on manyts references occasions in this house. he and other members have been keeping count. i said i wanted us to leave the eu on the 29th of march and i
leave on theto 29th of march. -- i voted to leave on the 22nd of may but sadly, not sufficient number of members across this house voted to leave the eu on those days. hence, the extension has been requested to enable us to come to a position where this house can agree on a majority on a deal that we can then deliver on leaving the european union. thank you very much, mr. speaker. can i think the prime minister for putting the national interest above her parties -- our party's interest. in agreeing to an extension. we may now have more time at our businesses -- as our businesses face more uncertainty i
encourage her during the easter recess to take her own advice and reflect on the decisions that need to be made in her proposal and decide to put her due to the british people so that they can decide if they still wish to leave. now we know the actual choices brexit involves. so that we can finally bring this crisis facing our country to a conclusion. prime minister may: i nor the government have changed our view on the need for this house for this parliament to deliver on the results. i think it is for all of us across this house to recognize the decisions that now faces. it is this house that determines whether we are going to brexit. we have that opportunity and can work together to find an agreement that will command the majority of this house and if we do that in time then we can , leave the european union
without the parliamentary election. in my region already, to be -- there are shutdowns because of the brexit uncertainty. can i think the prime minister for helping us avoid a no deal pressure. through her, the 27 heads of state that supported the decision. good you elaborate the future relationship? -- could you elaborate the future relationship? >> i think my friend is referring to the references i have made previously about negotiation in future relationships to make sure the parliament has a greater role but also that we take wider consultations with society and businesses and trade unions. it is the exact format of the
form that has not been determined. that will be an important element of the next age to make sure that all voices are being heard and can contribute on the debate. so notwithstanding her own personal objections the house , can choose to attach a referendum amendment to the bill. with that constitutional advice talks,ed in cross party what officials prepare a timetable completed before the end of october in which such a hypothetical poll could be conducted if the house moves? thee minister may: gentleman is aware of the government's position. there are those in the household may wish to press their case on this matter when the legislation is going through.
the house has already rejected that proposal. will the prime minister take the opportunity to remind the house again the views only actuallyalks and refused talks some time ago? is that not the case that whatever we say the fact is the thepean commission has said only thing available to us is are the -- what they recommending to the house? the pointster may: was reiterated again by the european council. in their decision of yesterday. that they offered
the opposition the opportunity to talk and we had an additional meeting. they are not the same level of follow-up meeting for the same level of interest. what i am pleased about is the approach being taken. we're looking at these issues in detail and constructively. up until yesterday, the eu was saying quite clearly that there wasn't an extension unless it was a credible plan and an election or referendum or prospect of getting an agreement. if they granted an extension, there would be stringent conditions. neither of those those were held by the european union because they backed down. will the prime minister learned the lesson that she continues to reiterate what the eu has said about the withdrawal agreement? she and the rest of the bench
voted for changes to the backstop and the withdrawal agreement and the attorney critique it and said it didn't change the fundamentals of what was a great. can the prime minister please examine where she is going with all of this and learn the lessons and come back with something that can actually get a majority in this house? what she also just on the issue of extensions bear in mind that the current session of parliament is due to end i understand fairly soon. there is some talk around extending the session beyond two years. mr. speaker, on that point, i think many in this house including in this bench would regard that as something that is not acceptable. have minister may: we consistently forced change withdrawal agreements.
he will know well that we have argued on many occasions. before the withdrawal agreement originally agreed in november, the government pushed consistently for exit talks, but they didn't agree until the first meaningful vote. we raised the issues again and souchange -- salt change -- ght change. betweennged letters myself and the eu council in january. on the 11th of march in frankfurt, i agreed a package which means that the eu cannot trap the u.k. indefinitely. it is explicitly a breach of the commitments we had agreed if they do so. have an arrangement by december 2020.
at every stage, we have been working to get withdrawal agreements and the eu has now -- that theyat have backed down. to.elation to thee was discussion around table of that issue of conditionality. and the affect that i think everybody around the table focused on is there was only a single tear of membership of the european union. legally, there is only a single tier, and they rejected the concept of conditionality on that basis. the prime minister will recall that in the conservative manifesto, there was a commitment to negotiate a pre-trade and customs agreement. would she agree with me that the
political declaration has been agreed and discussions with the labour party are being constructed in their spirit, and will she keep going to keep the timetable that avoids european elections if many of us feel it is time to get this done? thank you, my honorable friend. we are indeed conducting those. i do indeed want to achieve the timetable that was set. many across the house believe it is important to ensure we can leave the european union before the european parliamentary elections. >> thank you, mr. speaker. we are in this difficult situation because the government's approach hasn't worked. inseem to be going around the same circles or doing the same things, isn't going to solve things either. it would be helpful to understand how far the prime minister is actually come -- prepared to reconsider
her redline. will she told the house whether she is now willing to consider a theon external tariff with eu, a key part of any customs union, or does she still rule a common external tariff out? p.m. may: can i say to the right honorable lady, obviously the house rejected the government's plan. it also rejected the opposition's plan. the house rejected no deal. the house rejected replication. the house rejected a second referendum. come to ano agreement on what it can agree on to take the issue forward. i ampeople talk about -- aware of the question the right honorable lady asked. our customs union i think there is actually more agreement and also given credit when the language is used. we have been very clear -- we
have been very clear we want to obtain the benefits of a customs union, while being able to operate our own independent trade policy. we have been clear. the labour party has said i want a trade policy pair the question ensure thisn country to be in charge of its trade policy in the future. the fact remains that we now onave let the eu by wto terms if the prime minister had not extended deadlines. in recent years, they have taken in the full knowledge we could be leaving on wto terms. will the prime minister therefore show more confidence
and commit to the house that if this parliament does not pass a deal, we will be leaving on wto terms, terms by which we profitably trade with many countries outside the eu? say to my honorable friend, i know he has continued to champion the concept of leaving without a deal with the european union. i believe it is important to this country we are able to leave in an orderly way. he references wto terms. of course, we trade with many countries around the world, not on wto terms but on the eu trade agreement with those countries. but actually leaving without a deal is not just about our trade arrangements. it is about other issues. it is about security as a country as well. there are other matters that a deal will cover. i continue to believe that leaving with a deal in an orderly way is in the best interests of this country, and
that is what i am pursuing. >> in the midst of these important and inevitably contentious exchanges, may i ask the house to join me in warmly welcoming in the gallery today the former speaker of the new zealand parliament david carter, accompanied by deputy speaker of the parliament, the honourable anne tolley mp. it is a great delight to welcome you both. you come from a country that we regard as a great friend, and david you have been a great friend to us and to me. welcome. the primeaker, does minister not take any responsibility for the fact that she, a conservative unionist prime minister, signed up to the backstop originally without ensuring that she would get support in parliament for it? the only vote that went through with a big majority was the brady amendment. has she really done her best to get the backstop removed?
-- to ensure that we cannot get the backstop removed? it must be removed before the house will support her withdrawal agreement. p.m. may: i say to the right honorable lady, as i indicated earlier, we have at every stage taken this issue of the backstop. we have been arguing with the european union in relation to this issue. we did take a brady amendment. as a result of the decision taken by this house, we took issue back into the european union. the legally binding changes obtained in the stroudsburg agreement -- strasbourg between me and the president of the european commission were a direct result of reflecting the views of the house. this government has been clear that not only is there an accelerated timetable to determine alternative arraignments -- arrangements that can replace the backstop , but we have committed to putting money into the work that will ensure that we have those alternative arrangements to replace the backstop.
the right honorable lady knows. my view is that the backstop should never be used, it need never be used, and we need to ensure that we have the relationship in the future. that is why the future relationship is the important way of sustainably ensuring that we meet all our obligations, including those in relation to a border between northern ireland and ireland. >> mr. speaker, of course the government continues in office thanks to the support and confidence of supply partners. in the event that the withdrawal agreement is pushed through unamended over the heads of those partners, will the prime minister be seeking the confidence of the labour party? p.m. may: my honorable friend, i recognize that in this house, reaching across the divide between the government and opposition front benches to attempt to come to an agreement on a matter is not the usual practice.
think virtually unprecedented in the conditions in which we are doing it today, but i believe it is in the national interest for this house to deliver on the result of the referendum, for this house to deliver exit to the british people and do so in an orderly way. i have now voted three times to leave the european union with appeal. i want to see this house by a majority voting to leave the european union with a deal. that is where we are trying to find agreement across this house. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i welcome the extension because it provides time for a people's vote, and i agree with the words of the right honorable gentlemen for leads central when he says that it is the only way out of the crisis and to end the uncertainty. mr. speaker, it will not have escaped you that a number of honorable members have heard the words of the prime minister when she speaks about compromise, but
she still has refused or is unable to tell the house what is her compromise, what are the red lines that she sets out which she now intends to rub out? please, prime minister, answer those questions. which of your red lines are you now prepared to rub out? to the right honorable lady, the whole point of sitting down and negotiation and coming to an agreement is that both sides explore where that point of agreement may be. those are the discussions that we are having. we are entering into them oh, i suggest that the right honorable lady looks at the moves that the government have already made in a number of areas that have been requested by members across this house. the governments of michel barnier and angela merkel have all said that there will be no hard border even in the event of no deal.
so can we now put the idea of a northern ireland forever backstop out of its misery and work on mitigating an up-front customs union if a customs union is the price of labour support for getting something approximating brexit over the line? p.m. may: can i just say to my honorable friend, that in fact, i have talked with a number of those he has quoted in relation to the issue of a border. has deaf union has been clear that the rules of the european union must be applied at the border in the event of no deal. that is clear from the european union. some of the other comments have been taken out of context and the interpretation given to them. on this issue of the customs union, i come back to the position i set out earlier. we want to see the benefits of a customs unit dust union. but is in the political
declaration. no tariffs, no quotas and no rules of origin checks. we also want to see, and this was reflected in the political declaration, an independent trade policy. the labour party has a position of the benefits of a customs union with a say in trade policy. we are very clear that the benefits of a customs union can be obtained while ensuring that we have the freedom to make those trade deals around the rest of the world that we want to make as an independent country. >> i also thanked the prime minister on behalf of my constituents in exeter before entering this country does not crash out of the european union without a deal tomorrow. and the national interest, i thank you for that. but does she also not recognise, in the national interest, that the only way out of this gridlock is to give the decision back to the people, give them a confirmatory vote on her brexit deal? p.m. may: i think the way out of
this gridlock is for this house to identify the deal that it can agree that it can take forward, that it can command a majority of the house. i think it is for this house to deliver on the result of the referendum that took place in 2016. >> thank you, mr. speaker. clearly the prime minister has won the respect of the european union leaders. it is really important that we have good relations with our near neighbours and allies. it is essential for our prosperity and security. i urge the prime minister to ignore the bullies on our back benches, stick to her guns and deliver the brexit that was in our manifesto so well described by the leader of the house. p.m. may: can i thank my honorable friend for her intervention and can i say that we are aiming to deliver what i
believe people in this country voted for, which is a brexit that does protect jobs and livelihoods, protects our job security and protects our union, but also ensures that we bring an end to free movement, that we are no longer under the jurisdiction of the european court of justice and that we no longer send vast sums of money to the european union every year. that is ?what we are aiming to deliver, and i want to see a deal that enables us to do that gaining a majority in this house. >> i am grateful for advance sight of the statement. 27 liters decided the uk's fate last night, while the prime minister waited for their decision outside. seven of those leaders represent countries whose populations are smaller than that of wales, yet we are told here in westminster that wales is too small and too poor to have a seat at the table. does the prime minister agree that wales would be best served in a union that treats its members as equals rather than
staying in this self-harming union of inequality? p.m. may: i say to the honorable lady, that as she knows very well, we work with the devolved administrations across the united kingdom in taking forward the issues of particular concern to various parts of the united kingdom in determining what is the right way forward. we entered the european union as one united kingdom and we will leave the european union as one united kingdom. >> following the referendum in 2016 and the major parties' policies in 2017, we have a collective responsibility to deliver. the rational, responsible, practical way forward is to take the withdrawal agreement, with a majority, through this house and then move on with the best
possible customs arrangements, including i believe, the , majority of the people in northern ireland. p.m. may: can i say to my right honorable friend, he is absolutely right. it is important for us to deliver on the vote in the referendum. he is reminded the house that the two main parties in the chamber both campaigned at the last general election on manifestos precisely to deliver that brexit, and that is what we should be looking to do. >> prime minister, we need to use this extension for a purpose. one more heave is not good enough, and it will not work. neither will trying to con people that we can have all the benefits of a customs union and still have a completely independent trade policy. can i ask her once again, does she acknowledge even if it's not what she wants, putting her withdrawal agreement to the public is the way to break this brexit deadlock and get the resolution our country desperately needs?
p.m. may: i genuinely believe the way to break the brexit deadlock is for this house to be able to agree on a deal that will deliver on the vote of the british people. >> thank you, mr. speaker. at prime minister's questions on 20 march, when i asked the prime minister why she was seeking to extend article 50 having promised 108 times not to do so, she said, "as prime minister i could not consider a delay further beyond the 30th. of june" tonow have an extension up the 31st of october. prime minister, how are you going to honor that commitment you gave to the house on the 20th of march? say to mycan i honorable friend, this house and i can honor that commitment by
voting for a deal that enables us to leave before the 30th of june. the prime minister has now applied for and been extended to pesky extensions to the article 50 period. she did that to avoid the consequences of a no-deal brexit. those consequences were laid out by the cabinet secretary two weeks ago -- rising food prices, shortages of food, stockpiling medicine, huge damage to manufacturing and the weakening of our national security. yet for two years, she talked up this outcome saying no deal is better than a bad deal. this irresponsible rhetoric helped to normalise those consequences in the minds of the public. does she regret talking up no deal, legitimising an outcome that she knows is bad for the country and which, through the acceptance of these extensions, she is desperate to avoid?
i havey: i stand by what consistently said in relation to those no deal being better than , a bad deal, but we have a good deal. i say to the right honorable gentlemen i have voted on three , occasions in this house for us to leave the european union with a deal. i think it is all members of this house who wish to live -- deliver on leaving the european union, need to think about how we can come together and find a majority that enables us to do just that. i voted to leave with a deal. i hope the right honorable gentleman will want to vote to leave with a deal in the future, too. >> since the first defeat of the deeply flawed withdrawal agreement, the government seem to have focused on how to make all other options worse rather than how to make the agreement better. given that this narrow strategy continues to fail and cross-party talks may not bear fruit, what assurances and outline did the prime minister give our eu friends on her plan b, such that this latest extension becomes one with a purpose?
p.m. may: my honorable friend is absolutely right. this was a point made earlier about the european union expressing that it wanted a purpose for any extension. i was clear with them about the approach we are taking, the talks we are having with the opposition, but also as i made clear in my statement last week, able to comee not to an agreement with the opposition such that there would be a proposal that would meet a majority across the house, we would move to a means of ensuring that this house was able to vote on options and come to a decision as to its preferred option of what would be able to get a majority across this house. the extension is there to enable us to put that process into place. >> a six-month delay is just 74 sitting days and to waste that on a tory leadership contest would be an unforgiveable act of self-indulgence, and issued that she might for once agree with me
about. she has wasted the last two years. will she undertake not to waste one day further by supporting the immediate establishment of a house business committee so that we might have a chance of having a process that is in the interests of the country rather than the interest of the tory party, with more votes being pulled at the last minute and more game playing? ours say to the honorable lady, no, i think the arrangements we have in relations to business of this house have been changing in recent days, through decisions taken by this house, but i do not believe that the establishment of a house business committee is the right way forward. >> thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, the prime minister's first extension was based on the fact that she would ratified the withdrawal agreement, and in what was in and now, she's been given
another extension longer than she asked for yet again on the basis we word ratify these withdrawal agreement. perseverance is a virtue but she does not. [laughter] >> prime minister, if as i suspect, the opposition finds a pretext to collapse these talks, what will you do then? >> i would continue to argue for theconservative party, remaining government, a party that has led to a situation in this country where we have seen record levels employment, a
modern industrial strategy, 1.9 million. we are delivering for people and that is why this party should remain in government. out, ilcome the ruling welcome the fact that there are talks going on between our two parties but i do believe that we need to find consensus and break the deadlock but attempting to decouple the issue of the deal will not be acceptable to many people on these benches and will she recognize the only way to break the deadlock will be a vote and putting this issue back to the people? would honorable gentleman refer to the answers i gave earlier in response to a second referendum. i believe we gave a vote to the british people in 2016 we should be delivering on that. i think there is a view across
this house that we should be delivering on bragg said. the question is finding -- brexit the question is on finding a resolution and leave the eu. come together across this house that supports a deal in a timely fashion after easter that would not need to hold the european elections. representatives, if we were able to have an agreement, the command of the majority across this house, and we have to get the legislation through but i believe my ambition and aim would still be to do that structurally and we do need -- not need to hold the european parliamentary elections. >> mr. speaker, whenever the prime minister is asked about a second referendum, she is keen to remind us that has been defeated twice from this house. withdrawal has been defeated three times in this house and on the second outing for a second
referendum in this house, we got 280 votes, considerably better than her withdrawal agreement for its second outing in this house and support for a second referendum grew at the same rate as support for her withdrawal agreement. it gotd win outright if a third vote. in the number of options she intends to put to this house, if withan't get an agreement the opposition, in opposition to the democratic fact, will she include a second referendum? she is again also talking about process here. more importantly, many exporting businesses and farmers will
welcome the fact they are no longer facing terrace that would -- tariffs that would threaten their survival if we were to crash out. can the prime minister agree with me that contrary to many voices from opposition benches, a set -- second referendum would be the end of the process. it would be the start of the process and in the current climate, it will be more likely to lead to greater division in this country rather than the healing we desperately need. >> can i say to my honorably honorable friend that he is absolutely right. a second referendum would increase anger across the -- division across the country instead of bringing people
together and the way that the european union is and to get on with that. >> it seems that our body politic is increasingly fearful of the electorate. to the 2016hostage referendum and other public ballots. isn't it true the tone and conduct of us as politicians, her as a leader of the country, is increasingly important and as important as the policies themselves. is now not the time that we sit back and reflect and start to investigate how we can use public ballots to bring people together as a country, not run away scared of public balance -- ballots? can lead tod how we elections with rigor and focus on facts rather than division itself. i recognize the passion and seriousness with which the honorable gentleman has campaigned and championed the concept of a second referendum in this house and elsewhere. i would simply say to him no one is running scared of the electorate.
we gave the electorate the opportunity. we gave the electorate the opportunity to determine the fate of this country in relationship to its membership in the european union and they made a decision on that. they made a decision that we should leave the european union. i think, in fact, there will be many people, if we were to go a secondhe people referendum, there would be many people who would fear that was actually a sign of stacking its -- and wouldtheir further damage our policy. >> can want to thank the prime minister for all her efforts that have taken place to remove the nonsense of no deal from this agenda. in her statement, she mentioned if the talks fall, which i hope is not the case, she will put to the house a serious course in which to pursue.
me there willm to be a voting system of preference which allows the house to finally decide on one solution to this problem? what i heard said and is the intention of the government's talks with the opposition failed to find a point -- a point of agreement, we need to get a majority across this house, we will work with the opposition to identify options that will the put this house to determine a single result. there are a number of ways in which it is possible to do that. what would be important is ensuring whatever system chosen, were we in that position, whatever system was chosen, was generally going to come to a proper reflection of the views of this house. >> thank you, mr. speaker. prime minister knows that the single market is the only way we can guarantee workers rights, guarantee the integrity of the union, do something for the services sector, which is 80% of the economy, a stand-alone
customs union simply doesn't cut it. in these options presented to us if the talks don't work, could she guarantee the aforementioned single market through the economic carrier of europe would be another offer among those options? the pictureecognize he has painted in relation to these matters. it is not the case that full membership in the single market is the only way to achieve what he referred to. it is important we leave the european union. given the significant extent to which that plays a role in our andomy but that flexibility maintaining and recognizing the importance of the city of london, particularly in financial services and the risk that is born in the united greater lead us to flexibility in relation to services and on workers rights, i say to him it is not the case that the only way to ensure that
we maintain workers rights in the united kingdom is through full membership of the single market. this is a government that is enhancing workers watch prime minister's questions from the british house of commons live wednesday on :00 a.m. eastern on c-span two, or was just sunday night at 9:00 p.m. eastern and pacific time here on c-span. you can also go to c-span.org and find video of past prime minister's questions and other british affairs programs. announcer: c-span's washington journal, live every day with news and policy issues that impact you. coming up monday morning, august from the national taxpayers union and also from the public policy institute join us to talk about the 2018 tax filing season
and the impact of the 2017 tax law. also, from the bipartisan policy center and johns hopkins senior lecturer and tax expert will be with us to talk about a report on ways to improve the u.s. tax system. be sure to watch c-span's washington journal live at 7:00 a.m. eastern monday morning. joined the discussion. representative eric swalwell officially announces his presidential candidacy in his home district of dublin, california. who joined a field of 17 other democrats vying for the white house in 2020. congressman swallow has made combating gun violence a campaign focus and has recently been in iowa and south carolina, both early voting states. ♪