tv British House of Commons Debates Brexit and General Election CSPAN September 4, 2019 12:38pm-4:40pm EDT
support of the people from arkansas. [applause] were poignant and powerful and the debate on brexit hashe debate on brexit continued in the house of commons, you can see the entire debate -- event on c-span.org ginsburg, you can type ruth bader ginsburg in the search box. back now to the house of commons for more of the debate on brexit. inthe agreement was drafted may 2019 as a result of cross party talks. >> thank you for giving way. on a couple of issues, and i think they just want to make this on the referendum. the problem with the extension is that we have repeatedly heard from members of parliament,
saying they want to respect the will of the referendum. but every time we come to a vote on the matter there is always a reason why they cannot quite bring themselves to go to the lobby and vote for the withdrawal agreement. we have had three occasions in which we could have voted for the with all agree -- withdrawal agreement. every single time, the same mps trot out to say they support the result and when it comes to the vote they vote to block brexit. so what's different this time? votes thatingful took place are a very different had a goal -- different kettle of fish. the cross party talks contain a number of extremely important compromises and concessions for the extension. and it is therefore attractive
as this parliament has not had the opportunity to debate the withdrawal agreement. it's a different kettle of fish to what went before. memories,with short the withdrawal agreement built was very different to the former prime minister's initial so-called blind brexit which was rejected three times by the house. major did contain 10 concessions giving more clarity on the u.k.-e.u. relationship. talks gave the detail that we need. these were the direct result of the hard work of the opposition and the government and negotiating team over the course of six weeks of serious talks. the concessions included a customs union compromise with a binding vote on arrangements. a worker's rights bill which would guarantee that employment rights and the u.k. would not
lag behind those of the e.u., a pledge that the u.k. will see no change in the environmental protection levels after brexit. that there will be trade with the e.u. while ending free avement, and to allow for vote at the committee stage on whether the deal should be to affect in referendum. and assuring mps that they have the final say on the uk's relationship in the future with the e.u. and the promise that northern ireland will stay aligned with the rest of the u.k. on regulation and customs, even if the backstop comes into force. giving way.ou for i also appreciate the spirit in which the honorable gentleman is approaching this debate and this amendment. can you clarify for me that the changes that he is outlining, these 10 changes, would they involve changing anything in the
withdrawal agreement? the withdrawal agreement remains intact because those are the separation issues. all of these issues are around the future relationship which the european union has made clear they are open to amending. the future relationship is the political declaration. wasreason the previous bill opposed was because there was so little detail in the future relationship and because we have said repeatedly that the government should reach out, rather than going to the wrong extreme in this debate, but reach out to labor benches so that we can -- finally the former prime minister agreed to do that and we have a cross party talks and it's a travesty to has never had the debate. >> i'm grateful to the honorable member. and as someone who feels very strongly that the polarization of this debate has been immensely damaging for our
country, and who feels that there are not enough people finding ways of bringing our country back together again, does he share my view that this is a route to achieve a compromise, which has appeared to be lost at this place. and perhaps a way for someone like me who believes in a relationship something akin to , to find a way forward and to achieve the compromise that makes the obligation of the referendum outcome, but also recognizes that so many people wish to maintain a close relationship with e.u.. >> i think the honorable member for adding his name to our amendment. and i agree with every word that he has just said. let's not forget that the parliament that is captured by the extremist is a parliament that plays directly into the hands of the new dealers,
because the legal default position is that with no alternative we leave without a deal. the failure to compromise plays directly into the hands of no deal, and they are the minority in this house. the tale has been wagging the dog for too long. it's time to stop. in the committee stage of this bill would provide opportunity for amendments like a common market 2.0 arrangement. but that has to be debated in this house in the committee stage. let's get it over the line at second reading. i will give way. >> i thi the honorable gentleman forgiving way. he put for a compromise which i appreciate. it is good to vote for things rather than just against things. he says he wants greater details , and we know that there was not cross party agreement on these measures. so my question would be even if
we could afford thincompromise,t behind them? i think the honorable gentleman. i was not talking to the decision to not support the agreement which included the 10 concessions that we've negotiated and have done a great job in securing. tragedy thatis a this house has never had an opportunity to debate or vote on the withdrawal agreement bill. that we couldpe be joined so that it's time to vote for something instead of just against something. i will give way. >> i'm grateful for the honorable gentleman giving way. i appreciate that he is recommending to the house that we pass amendment six and seven. one but nott calls
six a seven -- but i understand is that i would be presenting an option that everyone iis hou can choose to adult -- to adopt in preference to know brexit at all, the the government can bring this forward, saying there's an option for us to pursue. but if the government were to itself negotiate a separate deal, there's nothing proposed that would prevent the government from putting forward that option. i think the honorable member. i can confirm that we are saying that it should reflect the outcome of the cross party talks. clearly this is not about a vote being set in stone. and the current prime minister is welcome, and good luck to him to go to brussels to try to get a deal. i'm sure that you will forgive me for some skepticism about the
series intend to do that. but if he's clearly able to secure some changes which he --ls that he can bring back with the reality is whatever he brings back will have to be based on that five-page document as a basic building block for a deal. because that deal will not be torn up by the european union. vote onouse never had a ie proposal, which i think would have supported if he had got that far. as the honorable gentleman agree with me that had the house realized then what form subsequent events would follow to get us here today, and what's going to happen to public opinion in the ever increasingly wild debate that followed, if that vote could be given with that foresight, it would have been carried by a large majority , and that deal would now be in place and would
be able to have civilized and sensible debates about the long-term arrangements during the transition period. i do wish and i'm sure many members wish that the crystal balls had been handed out when we first came. unfortunately that was not the case, and it goes back to what the honorable member was saying earlier. the parliaments and the debates have been captured by the extremists and we have to move on from that. we have to break the deadlock. we need a sustainable way of preventing no deal and leaving with a deal. could my honorable friend, and i think it's an interesting amendment that he and his colleagues have put forward, could he clarify what he expects to see from the opposition bench about the amendments? what responses there are from
that? friend,nk my honorable i recognize that we have not had a conversation on this topic. we had a right honorable member may clear in an interview that bor withdrew due to the inability of theresa may to deliver her own party. and weep prose that some of the prime minister's put forward she would not be up to get her own party. this i think confirms that outside -- if the prime minister could deliver her own party. some of the goodwill was clearly there. now all of the focus should be on finding a way to put that deal back on the table. it, vote on debate it, and use it as a vehicle for
short -- sorting out the situation we find ourselves in. i appreciate their own marks, -- the remarks. but my worry is that doesn't his idea require guaranteed statements from the european union? what would they be? how could we secure them? --at the heart of this deal this amendment, is a document that is absolutely being signed off on by the e.u.. it's there. it's ready to go. it's off-the-shelf. to theconcessions relate political declarations of the future relationship. is that the european union would bite our arms off if we came forward and said here is the deal, here are the tweaks, but this is where we need to go. this is why we use the extension period for a focus so that it's
ready to go. i'm sorry, that there are summit questions. it's interesting that with a sensible suggestion, that there is a genuine interest in finding consensus. in that spirit i ask a cheeky question, were one committed to 33rd -- the the 31st of october, is there any way we could get this through the house without relying on the extension? the seconds said in reading, we are ready to work every hour of every day, 24/7, to make this work. in 31st of january was named the extension document but if we could get it done before then and on the first of october, then indeed. to accept theave withdrawal agreement billed as it stands in its entirety.
we can add amendments and the committee state and improve it like any other legislation. those who are campaigning for a second referendum can add a vote to it at the committee stage if that's the way they wish to go. i would look at trying to bring in more of a common market 2.0 approach. us atoptions are open to the committee stage but we have to get it over the line a second reading. whatever angle you are coming from in this deeply divided and fragmented house, the withdrawal agreement is the only game in town to make progress. our second point today calls on the government to publish a copy of the draft bill to implement the agreement between the united kingdom and the european union within five working days. this draft bill must include provisions reflecting the outcome of the interparty talks. we know that document exists, we need to be published so we can get it scrutiny.
mr. deputy speaker? mr. deputy speaker? for any member who support the deal based brexit, or indeed a second referendum, we are supporting the amendments that we are putting forward this evening. it's the most sensible pragmatic approach and the way forward. let's get this done. let's rediscover the lost art of compromise. let's move our country forward onto issues that matter to people. to say to the honorable gentleman, had he checked with his own front bench that they would support this amendment? i understand that our position at the present time would be to abstain on this amendment. but i'm not 100% sure of that.
i'm not 100% sure of that. i hope that colleagues having listened to the debate will look at this across the house. we have a real chance of getting this across the line. when there is a discussion of alignment with northern ireland, did it say the whole four nations of the united kingdom would be a single market until such time that the europeans agreed to a transition period? >> that is correct. the commitment made in the clarifications on the withdrawal agreement makes clear that until such time as alternative arrangements are found, that is in place. the heart ofis at the withdrawal agreement, but if members really boil it down, how many in this house are opposed to the backstop? i believe it protects peace in northern ireland.
the withdrawal agreement has a backstop at his heart, there is a maximum of 80 members of parliament who oppose this and this is the definition of the tail wagging the dog and it has to stop. let's get back to the issues ont people really care about the doorstep, education, health, housing, cutting crime, do you remember when we used to focus on those issues and politics -- in politics? council has been paralyzed by -- this house has been paralyzed by extremes and i hope that our colleagues will join us in that spirit. nothing has been selected just yet, but pplcan be happy. the question raised in this
series of amendments relates in issue of the the extent to which the united to duty andt down obligation and be subservient to the european union. i find this deeply offensive for that reason alone. this whole parliamentary constitution arrangement we have is based on the fact that with general elections, we make decisions in general elections by the free will of the british people in secret ballot. taintedse decisions are , and the majority or otherwise is arrived at to decide upon the composition of this house of commons, then it's apartment based on secret ballots and not
a free choice of the british people. that we areains heading for general election. and that will sort out a lot of the problems we are currently experiencing with this bill, and indeed in relation to the whole of satisfying the the britishen by people in the referendum and house on occasions with the referendum act itself, on multiple occasions. when every single conservative act,ted for the withdrawal which clearly stated that we and wehe european union repeal on exit day, the 31st of october. that is categorically the law of
the land. so the whole concept of our subverted bybeing bill,ill dish -- this it's already in place and has been decided and i see no justification whatsoever for and theto reverse it votes themselves have already been cast over and over again in act, not of the referendum but also in the manifesto, and in the notification withdrawal and in the withdrawal act itself. so there's no justification that i can see for the majority in this house. though it did skate through by 29 votes, we know where those came from. there's no question about it.
they came from former conservative members of parliament and some who are unfortunately either ownthey che in a position where they have been having the whip taken from them. i saw this happen myself on it dids occasions though not happen to me personally. if you live by the sword, you die by the sword. in the right honorable member nods his head because it's true and that's how it goes. the reality that this particular provision -- >> even the fundamental point about this is the way in which it allows the e.u. to dictate to the united kingdom and the prime minister any term they would like and leaves us no targeting position -- bargaining position. that's why said they should not be called the european union withdrawal bill, it should be
called the subservience bill. it is subjugation, we've experienced this which is why i called on the previous prime minister to resign. on aprilcapitulation 11 and a flurry of points of order, and we had a statement that afternoon. and i said will she resign because she had capitulated? that makes this bill a mirror image of that. this is what's going on. -- in al effectively way it's worse. because this is an obligation, a duty on the prime minister, and enforceable legal duty by judicial review with it came to it.
i really do think the members opposite ought to reflect on the full naturei really do of the se and subjugation and vassalage that they are putting the united kingdom in. it is not a disgrace and flies -- it is an utter disgrace and it flies in the face of not only the referendum but also section one of the withdrawal act, which specifically states the european 1972 isies act of repealed on exit day,t described as the 31st of october. and the money, does the self-indulgence of the people who voted for this bear in mind the fact that every month that has gone by since april or the end of march when the should one come out, that it costs
for 2 billion pounds a month -- 1.2 billion pounds a month? any time they get to this self legislation -- self-flagellation and desire to extend this for no particular purpose whatsoever, the reality is it cost the taxpayer. those are the people we represent. the is a denial of democracy they expressed themselves in the referendum bill. specificallyouse, gave it to them to decide. we did not say that we are giving this under the referendum asked to make a decision in relation to whether we stay or leave. but when it comes to it, if we do not like the outcome, we are going to turn circle on you and revert that decision in parliament. .e should sue on statute
we gave the right to the british people undeniably and deliberately to make that decision on their own account, and not ourselves. so this is an astonishing illustration of what i'm saying that this particular clause , clauses been selected three subclause two needs to be read out briefly. " if the european council decides to agree on an extension of period in article 53 of the european union ending on the 31st of october, but to a date p.m. on january 1 of 2020, the prime minister this is the insane provision which has been pretty
-- proposed in defiance of the al arrangement, that the decision not be taken by members of the parliament, but by the government, and by the government which is elected, as it has been, and also in line with the referendum's decision which i have already described. the prime minister would be under obligation within a period of two days, beginning with the end of the day on which the --ision was made or before whichever is the sooner to notify the presidents of the european council but the united kingdom agrees to a proposed extension. so it's not just that we are going to be saddled with the to then of an extension cost of something over 3 billion to the 31st ofd january 2020, but if the council
agrees, then what happens is that we are under an obligation to accept whatever is put forward, being a date other than 11:00 p.m. on the 31st of january 2020. i'm ashamed to say that i have not heard this point being explained by the proponents of the bill. i heard the right honorable gentlemen giving a description of what this bill was about on second reading. i did not hear him say what i just said. if the honorable gentlemen will give way, i think that we can address this question directly in the second reading and what the honorable gentlemen did not do was read subsection three, explaining the circumstances in which
subsection two, to which he takes such objection would not apply. i don't think that's really an excuse. the reality is that this is -- the right honorable gentlemen, i will read out the subsection he referred to. this applies only if the house of commons decides not to --ance a motion octobere the end of 2019, whichever is the sooner. that this house has asked -- has approved the extension of article 53 on the opinion of which the european council has decided. i'm only repeating what it says there. what i am saying is that the unlikelihood of that not happening is absurd. i really do think this is another example of the kind of
obfuscation which this bill provides an almost every clause. obfuscation, it's actually driving the coach and horses of the way we should be governed in the way we have been govern. i certainly give way. >> to a point raised earlier and i think it's valuable, in section three, it assumes that the e.u. would in some way make -- a conditional offer. but the e.u. is in control of weather it makes any kind of offer, conditional or not, this bill hinges on the usability or ceo's -- eu'sy -- ability or desire to do that.
-- wehandle this in april handled this in april. it was hedged with certain conditions paid what's going on here is that we are being driven by this bill to do something which is in complete contradiction to the decision that has been taken already in section one of the withdrawal act, which implements the decision, it undermines the referendum and the law of the land expressed in section one and the commencement order has already been made. to the right honorable secretary of state for bringing in that commencement order, and therefore, it's a done deal. it has been done. we are now in a position where we have repealed the european of 1972 subject
only to the fact that the law of the land says 31st of october. that is bringing it into effect. this is a monstrous piece of notslation designed to turn only our constitutional arrangements inside out, but the decision of the british people in the referendum and the government politics. i have to say that the prime established really another important point in his leadership election results. two thirds within the framework of the conservative party, it's clear, two thirds of the referendum.y party he got two thirds of the grassroots. if ever a prime minister had a mandate to make the decision in
the framework of the conservative party is there, and that's another reason why i take exception to the fact that the reason that this vote is going through is because there are a number of colleagues that i'm sorry to have to say this, it's a sad business, but the reality is, it flies in the face of that the prime minister developed within the framework of the conservative party. within the framework of our constitution there is no doubt what the weather and i conclude with these words. that wesimply monstrous should be put io a position where judicial duty is imposed on the prime minister to make a decision under the terms of this bill, and frankly i find it inconceivable that anyone could vote for it. -- alwaysdeputy speaker, as
-- ason the side of the opposed to the defeatist. i've had the pleasure of serving with him on the brexit committee, but i fear he is a pessimist in this, and he things that we need to have compromise but he does not talk about the need for the european union to compromise, only for the united kingdom to compromise in the face of what was a clear commitment by the british people to leave the european union. i will speak briefly to the amendments in my name and my right honorable friend. three years ago the people , in the largest democratic mandate of our to maintaincted us a divorce to the european union.
parliament accepted this by giving -- under article 50 of the e.u. treaty. article 50 makes provision for -- or able divorce divorce without agreement? in a traditional divorce to dissolve a marriage, both parties except the irrefutable break down try to agree to sensible future arrangements. but the e.u. has never accepted brexit. the e.u. and its institutions do not want a divorce. if there was any doubt about that, it was made clear through those on the brexit committee, whenever we have been to visit the european institutions and their leaders, the e.u. is just hoping and praying that brexit will go away and we will remain in the european union. .hey do not want a divorce
their motivation is to contest that divorce by putting forward unreasonable and unacceptable terms, which offer us only a punishment deal. which was something our right honorable friend, the former prime minister anticipated in her speech preach she said she feared that might be the approach of the european union. they would be intent on offering a punishment deal. that is what they have done. the only alternative under article 52 a punishment deal is no deal. unless amended, this bill will remove even that option. which enables us to put pressure on the european union to come to the negotiating table and talk about a better deal than the one that we have as the right honorable friend of the data as the leader of the house said yesterday.
this is a deal that has already been rejected by the house on several occasions. but are we really going to be left by this bill with the options of either no brexit or brexit in name only, which is what we are talking about. the united kingdom's freedom to divorce under article 50 is constrained by this bill and veto, allowing a the e.u. to block brexit indefinitely. there moves any incentive for the e.u. to negotiate, that's why the prime minister is right bill passes tonight, then we have taken away from the prime minister any opportunity to negotiate. at he can do is supplicate the table of the european union. effectively this will be an example of modern international
slavery. where we are imprisoned by the european union with no reasonable way out. deputy speaker, the use collaborators in this house have become more strident and less cautious. my right honorable friend has said in public and in private that his objection to know deal is only because of the lack of preparation, but he has now dropped that pretense, telling tellingrday that this us yesterday that this bill will show whether or not the house of commons except the policy of the no deal exit. effectively he saying if this bill is carried into law we will be telling the european union not to worry, under no circumstances will we be leaving without a deal. in other words, we will throw in the towel to the european union. is relatedthis bill
to the no deal reparations or recognize that since the change has changedt dramatically and we are now in a position where we will be prepared for no deal, which we should have been better. for in the first place. if the remainders have the guts, they would have voted for article 50. that's what they wanted and that's what the european union wants as well. it would beat defeated in the house, what we have instead is the revocation of article 50 in all but name, a way to deceive the public. this is a squalid bill and an affront to parliament. us to the status of a colony and treats the united kingdom as if we had been vanquished in war by giving the you the power. and i despair at the defeatism
of so many of my colleagues. i hope that we will fight back and win in a general election which i cannot wait. >> point of order. >> thank you. for my right honorable friend, we wish to compare what we have right now, which around the world -- to compare we have now to slavery, -- appreciate the right honorable gentlemen providing that particular people, that is not a debating point and we don't have time this afternoon. >> i will be quite brief, because i know many others want to get in, i will compare a
couple these amendments, and a few words as to why i think this bill is a very bad bill. , i i do say to the members think that this is a genuine attempt to try and find a way having just look at this, he's very specific he's very particular and one of the amendments which says that the purpose of the letter to extend quote, and ofi course, the problem so far madame deputy speaker, i say that this is a genuine attempt by those who really do think that this house stands in serious danger of being perceived by the public more and
more as having taken the position that nothing will satisfy us, and the only thing that they want at the end of it all is to i the decision taken -- at the end of it all is to defy the decision taken. that is very much the opinion. -- we are now being perceived as a parliament opposed to the people, voting to leave whether and thist or not, parliament is that on a course to obfuscate and delay that with a view to eventually overturning it. there is no question in my mind and i would they this, concerning the observation to this comment, i was say legitimate observations, we get on very well and we play football together. frankly i'm in favor of them anyway. the point i'm making is that they are good talks. the problem was, this front bench at no stage i think
conducted those in a genuine sense. they probably never intended to agree with anything to my honorable friends in government. then the father of the house made this point, probably because they were under attack. -- that they could oppose any kind of agreement that they could do away with a second run amendment. at the heart of it, there's a deceit in all of many in lined alongside be i do not believe that to
the case with the labour party when i come to the proposition concerning this bill, i come back to the point why i oppose is about no deal but also to have a deal. if they wanted any deal rather than no deal they would have voted for that. i give way. there's a huge amount of virtue signaling in this house about people who do not want no deal. proposedments i have enables everyone to stay clearly on the record for their constituents whether they will allow us the chance to vote for the deal rather than no deal on monday the 21st.
does he agree that that is a sensible way of putting the issue straightforward. >> i have linked those, and i have to say to my honorable friend, i don't think the leaders made an effort to propose that. they are similar to one regard except to where it agrees to the final discussion taking place. my problem is that i just do not think that many members on the other side -- enough members on the other side really believe that they want to ensure that we leave. i think the truth is that what has grown in the front-end select party and particularly in some other parties is that there will be away, if you delay long enough on this, at some point the cry for a second referendum will get stronger and stronger,
, the frontw now bench of the labour party is that now they support the second referendum, having said they have not originally, and they now support voting remain in that referendum, which they said they did not before because of the election and they wish to implement the decision of the original referendum. to inform hime that many on this side of the house wish to vote for a deal, and will vote for a deal when it comes before this house for the issue is making sure that we have an opportunity so that we are sure that we do not crash out of the european union, damaging my constituents economy. all ofsibley saying now
these are interesting, all of these problems we face is that the front bench has completely shifted, and it's clear that they do not want an agreement of almost any sort. any obstacle will be placed in its way, and enough of the delay will produce a second referendum, and they want to vote remain. i think this is a vehicle now to produce the second referendum. all i can say is that i did not want -- i do not want my colleagues taken out and lost. past, been a rebel in the but everybody knows what they do when they government -- when the government says there's a vote of confidence. this is because this is the heart and soul of where the government is, it wants to negotiate a deal, but it does not think that you will ever get not a blood you are that stage to say ultimately we will leave whatever the case.
therefore, you can see some flexibility in those arrangements. i simply say madame deputy speaker, i will continue to vote against this agreement, notwithstanding the fact that i think some of my colleagues will not. but i have to say this is a that to aelay, and second referendum, and that's a way of overturning the view and belief of the british people, which would be quite undemocratic. you madame deputy speaker. i have some sympathy with the amendment, for a new clause one and amendment six, but the reason why i cannot vote for a minute 19 is because i see -- think people outside of here have figured out what's really going on. the position we are in
of having not left the european union because there are people in here who have been elected on a mandate and they stood up and said they intended to deliver the results who never had any intention of delivering our exit from the european union. they are scared of their selectorates.-- they have played for time. and they want to play for time again. 202020 --to get us to the 2020.us to get and then they will say that it will be hard to implement a mandate from 2016. that's what's going on here. and the people have figured it out. my constituents have figured out. we went to the polls in 2016 and voted to leave the european union by a margin of 67% on the belief that the result would be implemented because both sides told them's that -- told him that.
-- told them that. for two out and voted political parties that said they were going to implement the result and they figured it out. there are people in here who never had any intention of delivering on this result, because what will happen is if we have another extension and something else comes back there will be another reason why they cannot bring themselves to vote for it. because the nice thing that they have selected without having ever mentioned it before will be the block on why they cannot quite get themselves across the line. i am sick of it madame deputy speaker. the people are sick of it, and they have figured it out. the reason we are in the position now is because when people talk about compromise, we alliance of people who never wanted us to leave the european on the -- european union voting with the minority people on my side who actively want us to have a new deal brexit.
they have trotted through the lobbies together while people like me who came into the house in 2010 determined to get a sadly european union have done exactly what we have asked and is being demanded of us now. we look at that agreement and but it's not perfect, respect the minority of my constituents who also voted remain, and outlook specked me to represent them as well, that's why i compromised and voted for that deal on three occasions. i voted for a norway option on four occasions. and the same people who lecture and the people who want us to compromise are the same people who trotted through the lobby who killed this on three and i have to ask the question, when did it become the case that people who campaign for remain get to tell people who voted what it is they voted
for, when did it become for them re-voters who do fully understand because i was on the wrong side of my constituents, they did not vote for no deal, why would any constituents of mine last night -- i was on the phone with one, she posed a question and said why do these who stop the referendum results say why i get to vote? and i'm prepared to have a no deal. she's under 40, not a racist, and quite well-educated. feele told that if you want that that you want a no deal than you are obviously a thick racist northerner. we are sick of it and i will not support any amendment that allows for further extension of this, because i know what's going on here. time, you haveor
no intention they did not have this in april and they will not have it on 31st. and they are not going to on madam speaker, i would like ofto leave on the 31st october as agreed with a free-trade agreement or serious talks for a free-trade agreement so we need not impose tariffs or barriers on our trade and their trade with us. i'm quite sure that i don't have any chance of achieving that if this so-called no deal is left firmly on the table and if the european union knows that we will leave it no withdrawal agreement or no free-trade agreement if they do not agree to those talks or offer one. it is our only lever.
i came to this debate against the bill because i think it tries to take away our only or best negotiating lever in the situation. i've looked carefully at these amendments and listen to the debate on the amendments, amendment six, amendment 19, and i'm quite sure the members have very good intentions and are desperately trying to find compromise in a way forward at a time when the country is divided on this, as it was during the referendum campaign and when this house remains extremely divided, or fragmented, into a series of different factions with different views on what is the best outcome. having listened to those debates, i share the view with my honorable friends, my honorable friend from christchurch, that these amendments are on the side of 14 leave referendum results, they are designed to undermine
britain's main negotiating card, our right to leave without having to make any more payments, accept anymore laws, or accept any instructions on our borders, three things that the leave voters that i met during large numbers during the campaign wanted. taking control of our money, borders, and laws.we have the right to do that on the 31st of october. --is because we have that yes, taking control of our laws. it is because we have that right , i am explaining the extreme irony of this parliament who claims to believe in democracy is deliberately trying to thwart our democracy by denying the results of the democratic decision made by the people, which we said was theirs to make , and trying to overturn the promises that many candidates in the general election of 20 made on the labor side in particular and seem to have forgotten now that they are members of
parliament. >> i noticed the laughter from and a very good sense that he was speaking. i would like to invite the house to consider this. is it not the case that under , theithdrawal agreement decisions are taken by the council administers to impose obligations and laws on the united kingdom as a whole without our even being there? without any transcripts? and more or less, almost invariably, by consensus? the whole thing effectively is a massive racket, the object of which is to put us into a state of subjugation. >> order, order, order. sir william, we are running out of time. extremely important point
which goes to the heart of this crucial issue raised by the mp about our democracy. found the features we most objectionable about the withdrawal agreement was just unspecified and transition period could have stretched on for many months. we could be under any new law that the european union wished to impose upon us with no votes, voice, or ability to influence law. at the moment, we do have some influence, a vote, and sometimes we managed to water something down, but we would have none of those rights, and any existing european law could be amended or changed by decisions of the european court of justice. that would be completely binding on the united kingdom. this is completely unacceptable for a democratic country where the majority of people in a democratic referendum voted to
take back control of their laws. there parliament says, no. we don't want to participate in this process, we don't want to take control of your laws, we want to delegate most of them in many fields to the european union and have a foreign court developing our laws for us in ways that we might find objectionable. none of the amendments i have intending tong find a compromise tackles this fundamental obstacle to the withdrawal agreement and to the idea that we can somehow negotiate our way out of the european union if they don't think that we just intend to leave. >> thank you. chair, thank you. i am very grateful indeed. can i take you back to something
they said because it is important. many have claimed in the referendum that they are going to take back control of the border. may i ask how they intend to take back control and would you like to explain why it is all right to go out without a deal? is hisre john recommends speech, we are running out of time. recommences his speech, we are running out of time. >> if we take back control of our borders, we may wish to leave in place exactly the existing arrangements. i'm not making recommendations that would embarrass the honorable lady or her friends in northern ireland. the british government has made clear that it sees no reason to impose new barriers and difficulties on our side of the
northern island republic border at all. it makes one wonder why the backstop was ever invented or necessary and why it is so difficult for the european union to strip it out because they have a sincere promise agreed by all parts of this house that we don't wish to impose new barriers on that border in a way that could be an obstacle to good relations and the peace process. in, have youlders given them an end date? what happens, the building goes on.nd isn't it time that we told the builders the 31st of october is the end date? you finish the job, no if's and but's. tois great for emphasis repeat things, but we are running out of time. >> i will accept your guidance
and say in conclusion these bill.ents do not fix this this bill is damaging to our democracy, undermines our negotiating position, and achieves the offic opposite of t many are trying to achieve. >> one thing this bill has done today showing the progress that can be made when members of parliament worked together and we overcome our political divides. one thing that is also clear is no one seems to be arguing the leave of the european union is a good idea. i'm not sure how it follows the last contribution, but talking about ideas like democracy when you have a government wants to ignore laws, that ignores on pension, and once to stuff the unelected house of lords for love brexit peers, is
somehow democratic and bringing back control defies belief. , on a no deal brexit, whether it is no band-aid -- no mandate, no one voted for it, and the prime minister told us it would be the easiest deal in the world, and no chance that whatever happened. many members on the benches, i want to tribute to northeast bedfordshire. a fine contribution with a fine inister, there isleft the conservative party. space left in the conservative party. when he talked to the mandate he talked in terms of a conservative party leadership election in which a 0.1% of the population, if that, could vote. that is not a mandate.
that is not a democracy. the gentlestit in but strongest terms possible, leaving the european union and the hard cuts to everyone by the governments no deal brexit is bigger than the conservative party. it is bigger than every single party in this place. when members think about this, they do well to remember that. i will say something else. i think members, like the member from gloucester, have good intentions and what they try to do. this is a government who has no idea what they are doing, and we must take no deal off of the table. i would like the members to back our bill tonight, thank them for their contribution, and we won't be backing any amendments because we need to get the deal through and take no deal off of the table. >> thank you madame deputy
speaker. thank you to everyone who has been contributing, because it has been largely thoughtful and reasonable. it has been a sort of debate we more often the last couple of years. i do recognize that the amendments from the members of are put forward with good intention and to seek to assist the process. our view on all of the amendments is determined by the objective of the bill itself. friends made clear by my in the second reading debate. the bill has one clear purpose, to prevent a disaster is no deal brexit on the 31st of october. it has been an extraordinary coalition brought together over the last few weeks to put the bill forward in the spirits of
consensus. we know that no deal would be a disaster for jobs, nhs, and security, and the government .ade that clear in addition, there is real anxiety about the lives of citizens in the u.k., and the forgotten u.k. citizens in the eu, thrown into uncertainty and possible legal jeopardy. as many pointed out, no deal would not be the end of brexit. it would be the beginning of years of long negotiations over our future relationship, in which we would start -- when we made the argument against no deal, we are not only speaking on behalf of that coalition in this house, but for many beyond. the cbi has called no deal a trip wire into economic chaos. that it would be a disaster for working people. this is our last chance to avoid no deal.
the house has voted against it three times, but we need this legislation because the prime minister and his government cannot be interested to enact the will of the house without it. the only reason that parliament is even sitting today is because of the amendment to the northern ireland act. the prime minister made it clear that he saw the september sitting period as a nuisance. i think he described the september sessions as a rigmarole. the prime minister has told the house he is pursuing a deal with the eu, but equally told the house nothing has been proposed. it was a devastating critique from the former chancellor earlier today. european officials have told the press that there is "literally nothing on the table, not even a sketch of what the solution could look like."
the prime minister's closest advisor has called the talks a sham. got that right, at least. the current government working alternative to the backstop is taking the backstop out. there is nothing new being proposed. if, by some miracle, there is some deal negotiated with the eu, the prime minister can bring that back to the house first to vote on that incorporated in the legislation. let me turn to the amendment to .he bill >> does the agreement mean there is no mandate in place for no deal, just like no mandate for remain. in that spirit, will a compromise amendment look to bring the house forward to get a commonplace deal and get the house and country out of this process? my friend preempts the point
i was about to make. right to saytely there is no mandate for no deal. all of those who campaigned so vigorously for it for leaving 2016 madean union in it absolutely clear that they were doing so with the intention of securing a better deal, a deal that would be available in months. the voters who cast their ballots in 2016 forgiven the clear impression that that would involve i think was described as a relationship. described by the current deputy prime minister, if the description goes with the cabinet office post. as described by him something which would be broadly similar to what we have at the moment. deal,is no mandate for no clearly people voted to leave,
but by a painfullyi will give way. he stood on a manifesto which promised to respect the referendum and to implement the outcome of that referendum. thatt is absolutely clear what the labor front bench has done during this process is frustrate the entire exercise, create as much chaos as possible, and prevent any prospect of a deal being implemented. if he wants peop to believe that he is actually in favor of what is the labor from bench doing to uphold the mandate he was given at the last election, to find a way of leaving eu? >> i am happy to do that. we sod at the last election on a commitment to respect the results of the referendum and
terrific up the negotiating mandate, which we thought the tory government failed the british people. i said from this dispatch box in the fifth of december, when the prime minister opened the original debate on the she seesl deal, that the opportunity to come straight to the reddish people. that they voted to leave by painfully close margin. that it was a mandate we would no longer be members of the european union, but we could retain a close relationship, customs union, single market, agencies and partnerships we built together. then we could have secured a deal. the cross party talks in that spirit. time.onscious of i'm giving the minister time and won't.uty speakers, so i i've taken a number of interventions and will finish the point. it relates to the last one.
the point about the cross party talks is we entered into them with the spirit and clear proposal. the prime minister refused to budge on her redline. those talks broke down. so the difficulty with the amendment that is being moved by is not in hisnd intention. i listen to his speech very carefully and listen to him on the radio very carefully. with some of the practicalities of it. he is proposing an amendment which does not really exist. a withdrawal agreement plus points to which the government did not agree. now, i recognize as well that there are different, there are others -- acctly on that point, i that we don't have an officially published withdrawal agreement bill, but we do have a very
clear commitment from the government based on the cross party talks, which would be encapsulated within a bill which is ready to put forward to parliament. i think he is talking about the theresa may government, which is a different proposition from the one we are facing at the moment. been the basis for an agreement, we would have seized the opportunity in the talks. although i have sympathy with what she is saying, and those proposals could be part of the discussions we need to have in the extended period we will secure when the bill is passed, as will the proposals that other members have made across the house. we can only achieve that space by voting for the bill today. this has brought members across
the house together around a single clearly focused objective. we united around the deal to avoid a no deal brexit and we need to focus very narrowly on we achieve that objective, because we know a clear majority knows, a growing majority within this house knows, that if we stumble into a no deal brexit you will be a disaster for the country. >> stephen barclay. >> thank you. the principal of this bill in terms of seeking an extension is wrong. at secondment reading, at third reading, it is so flawed we have not bothered to table amendments to it because we disapprove of it in all forms. the bill cannot be improved
because it goes against the democratic wish of the british people, of 17.4 million citizens . it goes against the strong desire of many up and down this to certainty, clarity, and brexit and to get on with the wider domestic agenda as set out by the chancellor in the review earlier today. 24,000 police officers in yorkshire. a record increase of 6000 pounds on starting salaries for teachers. leveling opportunity for those who warrant it and supporting the economy through the tough decisions we took in 2010, which allows record investments with 20 new hospital upgrades. the member spoke with sincerity, and i do not question the spirit in which he brings clause oen to
the house -- clause one to the house this evening, but he spoke of compromise. correctly, it is the reality that the member voted against the deal all three times. all three times. now he says, now he says he doesn't vote for the deal as in the amendments. isthe author said, it remarkable the agreement is unchanged. at the third meaningful vote, it was not on the political .eclaration his vote against the third meaningful vote was against the withdrawal agreement alone. that was the chairman of the extension that was granted on the 31st of may.
the spirits in which he brings that new clause one to the house. on ahe seat is compromised withdrawal agreement that he himself -- wait a minute. thank you to my honorable friend forgiving way. cross party talks were not able to agree on compromise. furthermore, making assurances on workers rights, environmental standards, and domestic legislation that the labour party demanded. when it came to actually passing a vote, and moving this country and this house forward. if i can just undress that intervention by my honorable friend. it is the case. opposition onwith both sides in good faith. it is a genuine
misunderstanding, such as the appetite of the government through participating. perhaps at the start of the talks there were genuine misunderstanding. as i set out, it is the purpose of those talks for the second referendum. we only need to look to the carl wilson amendment to see that the talks were not necessary. if you look at the way that the talks collapsed, it was on the on one of great integrity. i respect his position, but it is seeking a second referendum. if that was genuinely the crux of his concern, surely that would send evidence at the start of those talks that didn't leave the necessity of those talks in order to -- and i give way to the member. the honorableo
gentleman forgiving way. i have voted for n a deal . we have to move on and look forward. many of my colleagues regret not voting for a deal, and they are dealing with that now. what we are trying to do from the back benches, and maybe both front benches could listen, is we want to identify and agree that there is much in the withdrawal agreement bill, whether the intent is across the house -- it is not the only deal, and our amendment asks to reflect and build on it. for goodness sake, we have to move on, and that is an increasingly loud voice across the house, wanting to move on. >> may i agree with the honorable lady in substance and form. she is right in the requirement to move forward and not look back. i made a very similar point to the irish government in terms of how we move forward to date.
she is right also in terms of the fact that there is much in the withdrawal agreement on which we can move forward. -- i'm reflected upon trying to adjust the honorable ladies point. in terms of the withdrawal ment colleagues are concerned about aspects of the withdrawalment, whether it is geographical indicators. reflected thatas some of us have sought compromise, and will continue to do so. i give way. >> this is not really about those who
genuinely want to do something. this is about the front bench on a wrecking process. this is how to have a second referendum when everyone is so tired out they will vote against it and overturn the referendum. they should vote with us. my friend is absolutely correct. the prime minister has been clear in setting an objective on the 31st of october. in being clear and turbocharging preparations of a no deal outcome, we have seen movement at second reading between a starting point where not a word on withdrawal agreement can be changed, to one which created solutions can be explored. in brussels today making progress on that, yet he is working this by phone.
the media report has not been on the substance i know it to be. i give way. theould he confirm possibility of us leaving without signing a withdrawal agreement is our main pressure point on the european union? and without that, there is no reason why they should give ground? that theend is correct european union wants a deal. why is that the case? ande the position is right, the northern ireland border has been unified, the impacts of a no deal outcome is asymmetric across the eu. issues like geographical indicators. it is worth reminding the house 3000there are over european geographic indicators, but 88 u.k.. when we hear the eu are fully
deal, that they are fully ready for no deal, there is a difference between what legislation or regulation they may want to put in place, and the reality of operational regulation, which is much more varied between member states. bill about delay. it is about legislative purgatory. it is about disguising the true colleaguesuse some have ties, but many who voted against the deal not once, but twice, three times, who then say they are against no deal as well. this is a deal designed to stop brexit, and comes at a cost of one billion pounds that we want to see invested.
[overlapping conversation] >> we are bringing you live coverage of the british house of commons debate on brexit. members have been considering a bill that would block the u.k. from leaving the european union at the october 30 first deadline without a deal. earlier they held procedural votes. members now as you can see leaving to cast their votes and returning on the third reading of the bill. sky news tweeted prime minister boris johnson has told the 19 22 committee of conservative mps that there must be an election and britain will leave the eu on october 31. an election is one avenue to possibly getting brexit done for
the prime minister. the associated press is reporting the european union is warning businesses and people likely to be hit brexit to make sure they are prepared for the possibility that britain might leave the bloc without an agreement. we have been watching the debate since 10:00 eastern. [overlapping conversations]
>> we are bringing you live coverage of the british house of commons debate on brexit. members have been considering this bill that would block britain from leaving the european union without a deal. the deadline is october 31. a quick verification, these are on amendments to the bill. after these votes we anticipate members to return to the chamber to continue debate on brexit. there will be votes after that. if the bill is approved it would move on to the house of lords. this is live coverage on c-span. [overlapping conversations]
place passes the vote, then i say to the prime minister that this house expects him to uphold the law, and to fulfill the obligations that will be placed upon him by this bill, and prevent this country from leaving the european union on the 31st of october without a deal. thank for the assistance for their great help. may i also joined my right most warmlyiend in applauding the bravery and courage of many on that side of the house, who have stood by their convictions in the national interest. you, mr. speaker.
given that the house has now approved the bill as amended, could i press the government to publish the withdrawal agreement bill, which really does require the proper and robust discussion in this place? >> the honorable gentlemen has made it important in his own way , and it is on the record and we are indebted to him. aye. the contrary no. haveyes have it, the ayes it. speaker, the house of commons has passed a bill devised by the leader of the -- in his
-- itteristic effectively ends the negotiations, a bill that demands the extension until at least next year, and perhaps many more years to come. that britain perps acquiesced to the demands of brussels and hands control to our partners. a bill designed to overturn the biggest democratic vote in our history. therefore a bill without presidents in the history of this house. seeking as this does to force the prime minister with a pre-drafted letter to surrender in international negotiation. i refuse to do this, mr. speaker. it is clear there is only one way forward for this country.
the house has voted repeatedly to leave the eu, yet it has also voted repeatedly to delay actually leaving. it has voted for negotiations. today, i'm afraid, it has voted to stop any serious negotiation. what this bill means is that the right honorable leader of the opposition, who is still not in his place, mr. speaker, i don't know where he is, he refuses to give battle, or at least engage in argument. if that is a sign of how he intends to pursue things in the week ahead --
voices]apping now favored he has the house with his presence. the right honorable gentlemen's bill, amongst its other functions, is to take away the right of this country to decide how long it must remain in the handed that power to the eu. and i am afraid it is time -- that is what it does. i am afraid it is time for this country to decide whether that is right. the country must now decide whether the leader of the opposition or i go to those negotiations in brussels on the 17th of october to sort this out. if theyone will know right honorable gentlemen were to go, to be the prime minister,
he would beg for an extension, he would accept whatever brussels demands, and we would have years more delay, yet more argument over brexit, and no resolution to the uncertainty that currently the devils this country and our economy. -- currentlydeve this country and our economy. everyone knows if i go to brussels i will get a deal. deal, iton't do a would be eminently ,ensible, i believe they will then under any circumstances this country will leave the eu on october 31. mr. speaker, it is impossible
for a government to function if the house of parliament refuses to pass anything the government proposes. in my view, and the view of this government, there must now be an election on tuesday the 15th of october. i invite the right honorable gentlemen to respond to decide which of us those as prime thester to council on 17th of october. i think it is sad the mps have -- i do.e this, but i think it is a dereliction of their democratic duty come mr. speaker. if i am still prime minister after tuesday, the 15th of october we will leave on the 31st of october. the leader of the opposition now has a question to answer. foras demanded an election two years while blocking brexit.
he said only two days ago that he would support an election. now parliament has passed a bill that destroys the ability of the government to negotiate. saye -- is he now going to the public cannot be allowed an election to decide which one of us sought out this mess? i don't want an election, the country doesn't want an election, but this house has left no other option than letting the public decide who they want as prime minister, and i commend this motion to the house. is that theren shall be an early parliamentary general election. i call the leader of the opposition, jeremy corbyn. >> thank you, mr. speaker. this is the second time i have replied to a conservative prime minister seeking to dissolve
parliament because they didn't have a deliverable brexit policy. i'm not condemning the right honorable member by comparing himself to his successor, she at least made detailed speeches on her brexit policy, even if we fundamentally disagreed. this prime minister claims he has a strategy, but can't tell us what it is. the bigger problem for him is he hasn't told the eu either. at prime minister's question time today, he answered the question he was unable to say if he has made any proposals whatsoever to the eu. basically a policy cloaked in mystery like the emperor's new clothes. there is nothing there. the naked truth is the reality is unpalatable. a disaster is no deal brexit to take us into the arms of a trade deal with donald trump that will
put america first a distant second. the prime minister knows there is no mandate for no deal. no majority support in the country, and no majority for it in this house. her's of thee campaign said in march this year we didn't vote to leave without a deal. -- evenugh leaders though leaders on the leave campaign are absolutely clear that the referendum confirms no mandate for no deal. deal is opposed by every business, every industry, every trade union, and by this house as today's vote and others have shown. mr. speaker, we wanted an
election. [overlapping voices] >> does the leader of the opposition want an election? yes or no would suffice. >> he obviously didn't hear what i just said. interrupted by the honorable member, that the office of election today is a bit like the offer of an apple to the snow white wicked of the queen. the poison of a no deal. mr. speaker, i repeat what i said last night. the bill plath -- let the bill
passed. electionill back and so we do not back hours with the no deal election for the european union. causing concern, debated today, 92 amendments. motivatedoubt this is by the desire to approve the legislation to filibuster it. it undemocratic cabal aligned with the undemocratic and unelected house, to override the democratic will of this house expressed in the bill that we have just given a third reading too.
we have the prime minister deciding -- in august. today, he wants to risk -- himself parliament to shut down screwed and he. dissent inandle debate in his own party and expelled 21 of his own them -- his own mps voted against him last night to the hypocrisy of this process is phenomenal. for a prime minister who twice voted against the prime last prime the minister's brexit plan, a general election is not a plaything for a prime minister to avoid his obligations, to dodge his critique. he is committed to renegotiate brexit but where is it? where is the plan? where are the proposals? if he has a brexit land, be it no deal or the new mystery
havesal, the deal it we yet to see any information of, we should put it before the public in a public vote. referendum or a general election, and see commanded. canfor an extension so he seek a mandate and put it before the people. the truth, mr. speaker, as this motion from the prime minister is about playing a disingenuous game. i look forward to the day his government and his party and all the misery on this country are cast out of office and we this country crashing out on the 31st of october with all of the damage she knows because he has already seen the documented will do two prospects
in this country. it is a cynical movement from a cynical prime minister. >> owes going to join in if other people would debate. thank you for encouraging me to the deep distress of everyone else waiting to have an important vote. i found these exchanges quite protectable or they have been well rehearsed before they took lace. ministerk the prime with the greatest respect has a tremendous scope keeping a straight face while being so disingenuous. to have an election in order to proceedingsouse's to an end and have the election
clearly before october 31. he will obviously campaign before that on the basis that he has been sorted in getting an amazing official deal for the , which is actually being blocked by continental and by politicians in the house of commons who have no sense of true national .nterests it is wrong to say that the he is trying to reverse the referendum, a large percentage of those in the last two days are prepared to vote for brexit. they voted for brexit more often than he has. he had a delay in march and caused a delay in april and wished to do so on satisfaction and reasonable terms.
bill, the beginning of the pathway to actually give us more time for grown-up, .ensible, diplomatic exchanges the idea that the european deal because they really think they will trap is him permanently, is nonsense. dealare desperate to get a . of course they are. but not so desperate that they are going to accept terms which will cause chaos in northern ireland politically and economically and will shatter the normal rooms -- rules which will together a market in the customs union upon which it is based. the prime minister has formed on dramatic conditions which he must know make any sensible negotiations pointless unless he changes his direction.
he is now prime minister. politician.sible i urge you one last time to stop treating all of this as a game and use this time to actually get a serious resolution of these impossible problems to a proper, no doubt different relationship with our partners and in particular keeping our economic and trading relationships intact. they are essential for the future of our children and grandchildren. >> thank you, mr. speaker. can i congratulate with all my heart the honorable member?
he has done on many occasions, sense.with great i have to say to the prime minister, a piece of friendly advice for the prime minister, the fact that the advisor is bringing in the right honorable member, able to give sensible advice. mr. speaker, we are having this quite simplyt because the prime minister has been defeated. that is the reality. my question to the prime minister is, this house supposed to be solvent, in his eyes, except the will of this house, except the bill that parliament has best, except your duty as prime ministe and go cancel on the 17th of october and negotiate the extension to deliver. yet again, the government has been defeated by a majority in the house of commons against a no deal brexit.
the passage of the bill tonight to block no deal is victory not just for democracy but for common sense. for the members of parliament across these benches who worked tirelessly to build consensus for this legislation to pass and catastrophe, the prime minister should not be talking about surrender. congratulating members of parliament who stood up for all of our national interest spirit what a disgrace for a prime minister to refuse parliamentarians, decent parliamentarians, of surrender. it lacks integrity. the prime minister must show respect for democracy and agree to abide by the will of parliament.
>> tonight, the right honorable member tonight that he will vote against the government. if the government continues to pursue this wreck your death reckless no deal policy, we against to work parliament? >> we have a responsibility to stop that disaster of no deal. working with leaders of other parties to ensure that the passes tonight, we come together to protect people across the united kingdom it is the of this parliament.
we ensure that we keep working together. no one voted for a no deal brexit. it was not on the ballot in the prime minister needs to wake up to that reality. debate you listen to the . it is important. you can try and shake them down. you tried last night and it won't work. the house should not under any circumstances seek to kill the protections and legislation. the smp will not fall for them. the spanish national party is ready for an election.
of standing in the scottish -- we will take the fight to those constituents over the course of the coming weeks and make sure those constituents have the opportunity. mr. speaker. much of this has been about democracy. it is about the abuse of power by a government seeking to shut down parliament. must respect the scottish parliament and in particular, the mandate of scottish government has. it is scotland's right to choose -- not the right of the prime minister any others. that our reports to that matter, that we cannot determine when scotland votes in a referendum. an election is coming. i am going to scotland to send a
message. set to win a majority of seats in the election. make no mistake. we relish the election because we want to stop exit for good. we want to stop this prime importantly,most we want to give people -- they are showing their own future. map be party to the prime minister's games. would use anister election to force a no deal brexit through the back door. the s&p cannot support the motion tonight because we do not trust the prime minister, his democracy, and his government's broken promise to the people scotland, we cannot trust that he would allow this
bill to pass. other opposition party spirit tonight, we will not give the prime minister the opportunity to bring in a no deal to the back door. we cannot allow a government that has lost its majority that does not command a house, that , infrequented parliament office for one more day longer than necessary. to will shut down this parliament. we could instead use the time to run him out of office. house on thee authorization benches should come together to bring down government. not on prime minister's terms but on the right terms. days, to remove
the irresponsible incompetent from the office. >> mr. speaker. >> i think i have an apology to make to brenda in bristol. we need to ask ourselves the new agenda that the new prime minister wishes for this country. to put those 20,000 new police on the streets, and the criminal justice system, the answer must be no or at least be rather doubtful.
have confidence, this place is possibly only a faithful -- fateful day. mo of the same while the public simply shakes its head at dismay of -- at what is going on. mr. speaker, is bizarre. there are those in this house who will not count on leaving the european union without a deal. >> the prime minister should simply follow his convictions and resign. go. before the disaster that is coming, he should know that.
>> i hope after that intervention, he will support us tonight so people can make their decisions as well. >> has my honorable friend heard so many all crying out for this general election? the prime minister is giving them an opportunity and they are running scared. not just from the prime minister, not just from the next general election, but from the people of the country who said they wanted to leave the european union. is the penny -- the people denying the, it is the british people in the general election that -- the conservative party will win that election. >> i think my honorable friend for that powerful intervention.
i could not agree more p to get back on track, there are those who will not without a deal. they are the same people who go to their local market every week and they will walk away from that trade if the price isn't right or the quality is not right. i have a rusty old heap of a car. is yours for 15,000 pounds. i am sure he will taken without looking at it any further. when the house was presented with a withdrawal agreement, by the previous of administration, i voted against it because i felt it was a lousy and rotten deal. i do not need to put those objections further tonight. i'm looking at those many others who voted against the deal because of pure, politics.
let me make progress. they claimed they wanted a deal. we know that withdrawal perpetual homage to the eu but many of them now seem to crave. what is now clear is that this house would not agree on a deal even if it were goldplated. respectse no longer the will of the people of this country who gave the clear message to us, to this parliament, that we would respect the vote in 2016. they want us to get on with a job. they want us to leave october 31. they have waited long enough. serves noament further purpose. it is time for a general election.
it is time for what many are asking for. it is time to actually stop the critics who say our prime minister is not properly elected. i am voting tonight for a general election. i support that wholeheartedly. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i want to say thank you to the mps in different parts of the house. particularly the honorable members who have worked so hard on the bills that we all passed tonight. it is cross party working who think the party interest for one side, to a national interest --st, watched the country what the country expects us to do. in particular, colleagues on the conservative ventures have stuck
to their principles and done what they think is right. should be commended for that. i have to say. i think the way they have been treated has in shameful. i'm intrigued that as a result of the house of commons, saying very clearly that we will not come crashing out of the eu with no deal, the prime minister's response is that it somehow messes up his plan. it is if -- as if it is news to him that the house of commons does not want a no deal exit? was he not paying attention on the previous occasions that we voted to say there should not be a no deal exit? that theiously saying extent of his plan was to try and bully the eu and that he
could only get a good deal by threatening that we would leave without a deal? if that is the extent of his plan, it is not well thought through. >> could you confirm if there was a general election, the crepes be putting in their manifesto, a pledge to vote article 50? >> no surprise to the honorable clearwe have been crystal on stopping brexit. all of these different views on different sides, i do not think anyone can accuse us of not being straightforward about where we stand. negotiation, the terms of the negotiation, the dome minister says he can't
this negotiations because we are taking the deal off the table, but we know they are not deals anyway. i think the were disingenuous is accurate. the prime minister has wanted the job that he has for so long, it has been almost painful to watch. he has been prepared to say and do anything to get the job. said we will get a great deal. now he has the job. that is the job. he knows he will just say whatever came into his head. there is no such thing as a great recs a deal. he is being -- scared of being
found out. i will say what i have to say. the way a think this is best resolved is by putting this issue to the people. thepeople vote to decide on brexit way forward because i do not believe there is a majority in this country for any specific type of brexit deal and not even the majority in the conservative party for any type of exit deal. but, we can have a general election. and i say to the prime minister, such an election should be held in a responsible, calm, orderly way. not with the threat of crashing out with no do either during the campaign or in the immediate aftermath.
extend article fis -- 50, and bring it on. if he is not prepared to do that, do not be surprised when people vote against him. speaker, one purpose in denying the motion tonight. that is to ensure the british people have no say whatever over at the european council of the 17th of october, isn't it? >> thank you very much, mr. speaker. it is very important that in this debate, we are all reminded of the language we use.
including the prime minister, has chosen to use the word of the lastus who believe thing the country needs is a general election. given everything that happened in the last few years, there are number of people for whom they could not be accused of being frightened. it has taken a lot of courage for some people. some of the honorable members just pushed it out. serving and usually loyal members of the conservative party who last night and again and the price is to see
the end of the parliamentary i don't -- want to close you there are people in this place to know that we have -- i'm proud that we have worked putting across parties aside of our normal differences again as a country's interest. within -- any extension should not go the on january maybe february of next
that bill is all about not stopping brexit as many of us would like, but about stopping no deal for all the reasons that and explained. >> a no deal brexit has no way for this exit conundrum. it will follow years and years of difficulties and is dishonest. --no deal brexit the honorable lady is right. the prime minister's agreement would not in the debate for brexit. our future trade relationship with the european union. my views on this are well known mr. speaker. it is to have now a peaceful vote.
something puts back to the rich people and let's get the matter over. i believe the british people have also changed their mind. they see brexit for what it is and given the opportunity, they would vote for the best, the current deal we have. it is another reason why this must now go back to the british people by way of a vote. >> the reality about this is this is about a general election. we have had speeches from a number of people that have nothing to do with a general election or recycling a debate we had earlier. the truth is there is a simple question in front of the
opposition parties. only two days ago, they were crying out for an election. the chancellor says to bring on. we are ready for you. the leader of the opposition when he was not having his afternoon nap and awake enough to meet the media, said he wanted to have an election. the scottish nationalists were adamant they were going to vote for an election. the honorable gentleman has made a full of himself already. he should stay put as i'm doing him a favor. i really am doing him a favor and he may not understand that. the reality right now, mr. speaker, the question is if they don't vote for an election tonight, if they refused to vote to have the election, then they are running away from what is there demonstrate -- democratic responsibility.
friend, he honorable really does not want to doom's us any disfavors going forward. i say to the honorable lady that she talked about a people's vote. the problem is she wants to put it to a referendum as the new leader of the liberal party said, she would never have said, the result is, wait a minute, if they said they wanted to leave, they would not accept the results are now wait a minute. let me finish. this is important. line p are fault without a different parliament, a new referendum wilchange absolutely nothing is supposed to leave again because we will come back to this parliament and all that will happen is they will stop, delay, and try and defeat. the decision tonight is the only decision that can be made in all
reality, which is if you want to decide whether the british people were right to vote to leave or wrong, put it to them in a general election and let them now make the decision. i see the gentleman opposite shaking his head simply because only days ago, he and his colleague at the front desk -- >> the right honorable gentleman said something of a out and that is simply not accurate. i asked and he did not allow me, which i accepted as his right. have always said, the matter goes back to the british people. the primefor ministers deal or some magical unicorn deal. as far as i'm concerned, that is the end of it. >> i say to my honorable friend,
if she wants a people vote, the people's vote is in five us tonight. i have never seen a moment when an opposition party does not want to take over. this is a bizarre affair when they are running away from trying to defeat the government. let us have the election. let us make that decision. genuinely believes in democracy, put up or shut up. >> mr. speaker, i wish to talk andt the general election the gentleman before me criticized us for not doing so. i want to speak really plainly and say that tonight, i will vote against a general election. vote against pretty much every
-- anything the prime minister puts in front of me. i'm going to warn mr.'s weaker that i'm not cracking on the old parliament protocols or anything. things and please feel free to alert me to them. i have absolutely no faith in anything the current prime minister says. literally none. him, there isust literally no distance i'm interested in. i have absolutely no fear. absolutely none whatsoever. minister the prime gameter is playing some
public store that i probably will not understand. with the honorable gentleman like to have an intervention? >> order. the honorable lady says c does not understand parliament to procedure but on the whole cute, she shrieks -- if she wishes to contribute, concede -- continuing to catch my eye. >> what we have is a game where we are not being told what the rules are. the prime minister could bring a she could tellse us -- he could tell is what the plans are for norther ireland,
and yesterday, i watched conservative colleagues i saw him to tell them colleagues begging him to give us a deal to vote for. the prime minister said i don't want an election. come up with to try and game the , it is my democratic responsibility, to try and do the absolute last for the people in my constituency. at the moment, it is not all that clear. we are all little confused. gamel not use them in a
for the prime minister to achieve the ambition he is only and neveror himself for this country. i will not use my constituents as collateral damage. >> one of the things people watching this should be aware of wante election they don't is the 14th with a 21st of november. that is the let -- that is the election. not agree and i will personally vote for any election that falls before the 31st of october. >> i think my honorable friend for giving way. i will also not be for general election today. i do not want in any way for no because its country will not only harm my constituents, it will harm the 22,000 eu internationals living in my constituency.
we have the secretary saying the freedom of movement will end at midnight 31st of october which means -- >> i cannot agree more. there is thousands in my constituency. of them have no idea what the situation will be for them. those people as much as i represent the people who would be allowed to vote in a general election or in a referendum. true that many collies do not want a general election to meet the -- >> make no bones about the fact that i am not able to be completely critical when i think things are wrong in my party and
the governing party, it is just a shame it quite a lot of people in front of me know what happened over the last two days are wrong but are too cowardly to say in public what they are all saying. you know what has happened over here. it is as if we are kicking out harriet. that is what it feels like. it is an abomination. you give sympathy to me about the problems in the labour party, and you just sat by silently while your collies have been mocked. >> very well. indeed. the point she made about the fact that on that side, it has treated us very loyal members of parliament, i think it is .nheard of
-- i hate the word fear the people probably do not understand what we are talking about half the time. the shifting down of parliament has essentially killed the bill that i forgot the 2.5 years. people in the south of deeply held feelings on it. to believe the prime minister's really doing it because he has a vision for the people in the country? i will vote against an election until this is sorted. >> working here and representing talking about a national crisis, is a crisis of trust, in politicians in democracy as
well. it was this house that decided to give the referendum in 2016. the british public would not vote to leave the european union. they wish to leave. the labor and conservative party both stood on similar platform. paper.ber the it said do you want to remain or leave the european union. a basic and binary question. 17.4 million people in this country decided they wished to leave the european union. that was 1.4 million. the expectation because of that cameron that david
issued to all in the united kingdom, it said, we will the british people have voted for. that was 2016. today, september 2019. we should've left march 29. but we did not. we should have left on february 12, but we didn't. cannotme minister said i dateict -- contemplate a beyond and we didn't. you will extend that by another three months. unless the european union decides they want greater than three months because that is something they have to accept. i will give way. he can have his believes but he cannot have his own facts. the bill we passed tonight does nothing unless the prime minister fails to come back with
a deal. if he comes back with a deal, we then vote for it on the 19th. if the house votes for the deal, we leave the european union with the deal. as the deal doesn't pass the house, the house fast photo no deal. if the house doesn't agree with go for the extension. those are the facts of what we have done. it does nothing to negotiations of the prime minister. that is a complete fallacy. this nigel,ening is that is what is going on here. >> what the house did today was to weaken the negotiating position of the prime minister. know that the european union, listen carefully, they have a direct line in this parliament.
-- we know what they're saying. -- are removed. by the bill passed tonight, it noes the european union incentive whatsoever to come to the negotiating table to have a proper negotiation. -- at least the honest party of saying they do not wish to leave the european union. referendum and the people voted to leave, i wondered which part of liberal
democrat is actually democrat. they are clearly not interested in what the british people are voting for in 2016. vote ford for a sond what we offer tonight is a general election to that can't he a second vote because people will look at the policies of the and of my party and its current leader, and they will decide who of the two prime ministers and the leader of the opposition will go to brussels of then have the negotiating october 17. part of the problem, and we all 2015it, is that during the referendum, to remain in the european union. to leave the european union.
the do everything they possibly can to leave the european union. yes, of course. >> thank you would be more accurate and kinder to have a. in pause after who voted to which referendum before those who voted one way have been voting the same way during the debate on the european union. i voted three times to leave the european union. i was the same could be said about some of the zealots on my side. >> the fact is we now have a prime minister who believes in the mission and who wants to negotiate honestly with the european union and be able to deliver the brexit people deliver four. to leave the customs union and leave the signal market and not a large sums of money to european union as we currently do, to control our own by thetion and not to be european -- and not have a back stuff that keeps us in the
european union without ever having to leave. three quarters of the parliament voted to remain in the european union. the british people ought to have the opportunity to change its parliament and they can do that tonight. >> thank you, mr. speaker. attempt is a desperate and ugly, cynical move. i am delighted that tonight it has been made very clear by all of the opposition parties that we are not falling for it. the prime minister can own his own will end this mess. he is trying to smuggle out the snow deal brexit campaign.
and that makes it so vital. -- reasons many of us want to get rid of the screw and callous government. : -- believe me, i absolutely want to do that. this is a government which has not only not done anywhere near enough, but they are exacerbating it with fracking and so on. it is also a government which thathe arrogance to claim the new devices are just once in the road. how dare they? they might be bonds in the road
and you have the luxury to be insulated from the impact of that disaster snow deal in no most of our but for constituents, no deal brexit felt real and it is not just bumps in the road. the fact that they could use that phrase shows how out of touch they are with constituents. a general election on the prime minister's terms right now is a trap. control the brexit crisis. elections are very rarely on one and is a notoriously bad at reflecting the true views if we are to and break the brexit deadlocks in parliament, then the people miss -- must lead the way. has to have aster commitment to the will of the people. why see not prepared to listen to the people, specifically on
brexit back to them in the second referendum appear vote. that is how we resolve exit, not by dodging. the people of our country have been left down but -- let down by our governments. thisnumbers of people for -- in this country, this is intolerable. the power game is rigged. 17.4 million people who gave the establishment a well-deserved kicking in 2016, or right and reasonable to be fierce because we need a powerful commitment now, not even to try and go back to the way things were before 2016. but that means taxing democratic failure as well as economic failure. it means redistributing power as
well as wealth. if the government was genuine about being on the roads -- on the side of the people -- -- were -- and the democracy that we do have and not seek to avoid it in any way and not try to avoid implementing the bill that we just voted on tonight. >> mr. speaker, honorable and right to remember the bravery of the honorable lady. let's recognize the irony that
she is calling for a revitalization of mark yet this aim time she is voting against reviewing the representative mandates of this house. i just invite this house for those crying for people's vote who will now vote against the vote by this a house. the british public have watched declinese of commons into an almost zombie parliament. parliament is incapable of deciding anything. which still attitudes even though the british people clearly voted to leave in the referendum. yesterday, mr. speaker, i spoke about the problem of us having thingd a conflict
representative and direct mandate. to pursue this house, it was unquestionably as a house of representatives, we qualified the as we introduced concept of referendums into the constitution. the representative mandate is unalterable -- unalterably qualified by the fact that we said we would implement the result -- and yet the bill, which so many of the remaining supporting members of the house are so pleased with does no more than invite the european union to put
off the decisions. pushingl began to buy off the decisions again? what kind of respect will this house gain by putting off the decisions at the same time as avoiding the accountability of the general election and what accountablemake us to what we are accountable for. >> mike coffman compliments. opposition benches are looking at the government that has lost its majority, they cannot get its business through, is offering the chance of a general election, which would the about more than just brexit. there are other things that matter to my constituents. and that they would still want to renew a mandate and give a government a mandate on those things, and that was a government without the ability to deliver, needs to have a general election. i would have thought of need -- anybody opposite would have said
that. >> i share agreement with much of what my honorable friend says. i returned to the question of how it will be resolved. oppositionhe in the prime minister is obliged to seek an extension and accept extension. on the first of january or whatever date the european union decides. what will happen after that? there is a definition of mandates. it is to repeat things again and -- --and again and accept expect a different outcome. the fit in the established -- it is beinges
undermined. to last thing i want is this be around the question of brexit. i want my colleagues to move onto the questions beyond brexit. that requires us to expect -- respect the decision. itit is a responsibility to conduct the negotiations as it sees. this brings me back to the fixed term parliaments act. that is the resolution we are debating this evening.
this has turned out to be a for this paralysis. this paralysis would never have a reason. i beg your pardon, i hear the honorable gentleman from the northeast of england. he is saying you voted for it. accusing me. i did not vote for it. i put on record in this house, i remember walking through the lobby with remarkably few people against the second meeting of that vote. i said don't worry, this house will rue the day that it passed this piece of legislation. we should now be ruling the day. because that piece of legislation has put this house in the position where it can endlessly wound a government that can avoid killing it.
government that can avoid killing it. if the leader of the opposition has so much contempt for the way this government is conducted and this government the longer has a majority, why didn't they put down emotional confidence? it is because there is fear in this house about facing the consequences of the general election because of the way this has has conducted the whole brexit affair. when i asked how this will be ,esolved, i can tell you this putting it off again and again is not going to make the political outcome of the eventual general election any easier for a great many colleagues in this house. the prime minister is showing leadership and courage at last.
he is trying to resolve this issue, leave and remain were the words on the ballot paper. if there was no reference to deal or no deal. there was no reference to a deal or no deal. the prime minister made it quite clear that we would leave the european union. this house has conspired again and again to delay that happening. people in their constituencies should ask themselves what mandate that have for putting off this decision again and again. that is paying the price. it is the rise of far more extremist parties that will be the result if this house carries on what enough the decision. >> thank you mr. speaker.
i am relatively new to this place but when i was elected a member of parliament, one of the few things i had to get used to -- it was addressing male colleagues as honorable gentleman. i'm considering what it means to be honorable. to figure outate what makes a person truly honorable. can the people of this country consider the actions of this government to be honorable? i have been reflecting on my years as a teacher and on myering how
years as a teacher and considering how hard i worked to instill the right values and each of us such as respects, honesty and integrity. used to explain to younger children is doing the right thing when no one is watching. we are watching the prime minister. he is trying to gag parliament. what are the harbors going on behind closed doors? this is out on the front bench. i remember sometime back being invited to a meeting of the government ministers.
he said the chamber is just theater. the real work goes on in meetings like this. when i speak, it is from the heart. i speak for my people in the valley. yes, i want a general election so that we have a government that acts with honor and integrity and respect for business and the chamber. however, i want that election on the opposition's terms. show thaty books will
made usent government the laughingstock of the world. our country deserves far better. >> speaker, i stand briefly to raise one simple point. it is an inconvenient truth for many in this chamber. that is the overwhelming tonight of members here voted to trigger article 50. what article 50 said is that we would leave the eu by the 29th of march with or without a deal. to, we have now seen extensions to that deadline. place,any outside this it is proof that there are too many mps in this place that will
straw that is passing in order to delay and frustrate the eu referendum result. that is wrong. it is very wrong indeed. not only does it make for a lack of trust but actually it is reinforcing a skepticism in our politics that is not healthy at all. we have had straws such as the people need another vote or we have to support this ridiculous motion that anybody who was , iftiating will understand you signal to the other side of the table that you are not prepared to walk away, it makes for a worse deal.
that is a fact. but not too many members here who will clasp at any straw to try to frustrate brexit. i will give you one other example, mr. speaker of how brexit is being frustrated in this place. aboutis a near hysteria no deal. actually,e fact that u.k., we trade with the majority of the world's gdp. u.k., we trade with the majority of the world's gdp. five of the eu's on top 10 trade partners trade on the basis of wto no deal. since the project failed, what a recordad since is low unemployment.
record manufacturing output and manufacturing output and record investment. we had more investment and france and germany put together. all with the full knowledge that the no dealleaving on wto terms. despite all that, we have had numbers in this place who have clasped at the straws in order to frustrate brexit and disregard the eu referendum result. that must now and. people have lost their patience with this place. the time has come to put action
-- for action instead of words. i will give way to the honorable gentleman. >> my simple point was this, i voted to trigger article 50. this is about what kind of deal i would get. the prime minister lost that election effectively. >> that is not a very fair point. there was a labour manifesto in the general election. the conservative manifesto promised to deliver exit. all we have seen since is utter it is by mpsfusion will not honor that referendum result. -- go on, of the day i will give way.
the honorable gentleman keeps a remainis is parliament with remain mps. there are 75 mps in this house that voted for brexit and leave. how are they remain mps? >> the house has consistently voted not to honor the triggering of article 53. -- article 50. when he voted and i voted to trigger article 50, it was very simple and short. it said we will leave by the 29th of march with or without a deal. no, you have had your chance. with or without a deal. what to many- members have done in this place is continue to kick the can down
the road, not twice but now courtesy of this bill. it is absolutely ridiculous. people are fed up with it. i think a lot of remain mps have to look themselves in the mirror and say actually, all i want to -- then up to the fact people out there have had enough. >> thank you mr. speaker. i am absolutely desperate to have a general electorate. government that funds the national health service. we stopped the wealth of this usedry being scrawled --
up in a tax havens. i want a government that cares about the people of this country and not just the very wealthy. not why the prime minister is calling for a general election. the prime minister is calling for a general election so that when and if we were to vote for it, it would be -- he would be in so control of what happens in this country. there would be no parliament to hold him to account when we leave with a no deal brexit. , more thanituency 50% voted to leave. i would not vote for a straight vote to revoke article 50 because i think that would be wrong.
after there has been a referendum and people have voted to leave the european union, i think it would be entirely wrong for this house to then simply go against those wishes. want to see a viable deal that would not destroy the economy of this country being agreed by this parliament so that when we , when we havevote a people's book for a second , i think we have to have that to bring the country back together again. i want a viable choice. i don't believe that a no deal brexit is a viable choice. i think the no deal brexit is a suicide note. if anybody on the opposite bench thinks that as passengers in a speeding car, speeding toward
the clip is that we are going to take the option of jumping out just before you rich -- reached the cliff edge, you have another thing coming. yes, we will have a general election. you will not survive very much longer. we are not going to have the general election while there is the danger of a no deal brexit. >> i found this a surreal debate in a zombie parliament. i tried tengion myself to make sure that i was awake. all i can say is to the people who organized the to in the form of a vote, we want a people's book.
it is called a general election. the government is trying to get its agenda through. because of the nature of this parliament, it has not succeeded. we need an election to ask the people what they are for rather representatives who just vote for what they are against. i want to vote on this and i get on with the election. i was talking about it to the prime minister today. i want it to cover limited government. because for that six months we have had -- not had a domestic agenda.
three times they have been offered a brexit deal. they were confused. they cling to a zombie parliament for fear of what will happen when they go to the people. we need a new parliament because we need a government with a mandate in a parliament that votes for something positive. collection of mps -- >> thank you mr. speaker.
this is clearly a poisoned chalice. schoolroom clown who thinks he can offer something, blabbering. he is clearly a person that we cannot trust. -- herefore >> the honorable gentleman is referring to parts of his career. let me finish. i hope he is not making allegations about the conduct of a member in this chamber. i would say that he is not. he is not out of order. i make the rules.
order, order. 298 someto the right names to the left 66. the eyes have it. aware that thebe motion has not obtained the majority required under the 2011.term parliaments act unlock. >> well done. point of order to the prime minister. [yelling] >> i noticed the leader of the opposition is once again not in his place support looks
impolitic waste or 48 hours ago the chance to stop the coup, let the people vote here now he is saying stop the election, let's stop the people from voting. the' only one solution, i think he has become the first, to my knowledge the first leader of the opposition in a democratic history of our country to refuse the invitation -- the invocation 10 election. [shouting] i can only speculate as to the reason behind his hesitation. conclusion is he is afraid that he does not think he will win. cheering]r torged his colleagues refrain from the unsustainability this position overnight and the next few days. clark will not proceed to
read, a very well. point of order. a is there some way to make motion so this house has no constants in her majesty's opposition. [here here] >> well i note i'm dealing with one point at a time. ordinaryceed in it matter. i'm dealing with one point of order and when i have dealt with that i shall happily attend to another. it is evident from the smile on the face of the honorable gentlemen, that he is very pleased with the pointed that he has made. [laughter] appointive order. i was going to elaborate for saying that this the first time in history that the opposition has voted to show confidence in her majesty's government. [cheers]
[jeers?] [laughter] >> thank you. order. the orders of the day. the clerk will read the orders of the day. not abandoned in the public many to be considered. not moved. thank you. motion number five on cigna action -- on selection. to move. thank you. say i. >> the eyes have it. petition judith cummings. i present this petition on behalf of if members do not wish to listen it would be seemly to leave quickly and quietly. honorable ladyhe heardesent her petition,
and unimpeded. petition, judith cummins. announcer: the house of commons now moving on to other business. they just voted against triggering a general election on october 15. earlier today they approved a bill blocking a no deal brexit that vote was 327-299. the measure now goes to the house of lords for consideration. if you missed any of the brexit debate in the house of commons, we will show you portions in just a few moments, and again at 80 cop p.m. eastern. it will also be available to view online, shortly at c-span.org. be sure to watch our weekly broadcast of prime minister's question time, wednesdays, live at 7:00 a.m. eastern, on c-span2. now look at some of today's brexit debate in the house of commons. >> thank you, very much indeed mr. speaker. i think to move that the bill be now read a second time.