tv British House of Commons Debates Brexit CSPAN September 5, 2019 3:36am-5:25am EDT
>> the problem, the reason we of course, theis we have slightly different views of what those test interest are -- best interests are. i could do no better than to quote the honorable member who on the third of april in the house said it could only be done at high-speed because there is no time left. stand onherever we this issue, we know there is little time left and following the us -- the decision, there is even less time that would have been available previously. therefore, i hope we will treat each other, recognizing we have strongly held views with respect and consideration during this debate. the purpose of the bill is very
simple. it is to ensure that the united kingdom does not leave the european union on the 31st of october without an agreement. the bill has wide cross party support. integrate pleasure to be involved with the honorable member and it's backed by members who have very different views on how the matter of brexit should finally a result including, members who, until very recently, were senior members of the cabinet. you could describe it as a somewhat unlikely alliance -- but what unites us is a conviction that there is no mandate for no deal, and the consequences for the economy and for our country would be highly damaging. those supporting the bill believe that no deal is not in
the national interest. of course, i will give way. >> when he talks about no deal, there are multiple sector deals. does he not see that the sector deals are being multiple deals in her own right? >>i -- . i don't know where the sector deals are. my concern and the reason for this bill and the support i hopefully will enjoy in the house today is because the prime minister has made it clear that he is prepared to leave on the 31st of october without a deal. those of us who i hope will support the bill today do not wish that. i will give way. >> would you agree that, in a sense, the debate has been going on for a long time and many of us have tried to learn. lessons from them. and in that process, people have changed their minds to prevent a no deal brexit? one of the amendments today is
to give people another look at what we might call the path -- the main path proposals that people turned down before at the time, but feel that having big spears they have now, they might have voted differently. with all the rush that necessarily has been, have you had the chance to look at that? it now has quite a large amount of support and we should have another look at that is no alternative. -- as an alternative. >> i have not had a chance to read the final version, and it will be tabled through the course of the second reading today, but i'm aware of the intention of the amendments and i completely understand what my honorable friends are trying to achieve. we cannot continue to delay
taking a decision and i will come back to that in the speech and i will listen to the debate during the committee stage. i will say this, however, the bill is deliberately open as to the purpose of the extension and provides a framework for support and debate, and if supported by honorable and right honorable members who have already voted for a deal and would vote for one again. it is important that we focus on the principal purpose which is to prevent a no deal brexit and to keep the coalition that shares that view together. i have more to say about that when we come to the end -- i will give way. >> thank you very much. does the honorable gentleman believe that a matter of such importance, irrespective of speed at which this is being done, should be dealt with ultimately in the context of the general election? >> there may well be a general
election at some point. but this legislation, in my view, needs to be passed, needs to go through committee and get royal assent and needs to begin in effect. in other words, we must, in my opinion, secure the extension to article 50. otherwise, there is a risk the election would result in us leaving without a deal which as it may turn out at 7:00 tonight is not what the house of commons wants and we should respect the view of the house of commons. >> i'm grateful for you giving way. if this bill does pass and it's given royal assent, can you think of any other reason why the labour party would not accept a general election? >> i think i've just explained the reason. it's been made clear by the late -- by the leader of the labour party and others because we must deal with first things first. preventing a no deal brexit is the central most important
question facing us today. >> i'm very grateful to my honorable friend to allowing me to intervene. the reality is, an election at this stage or even next week undermines the statute and we cannot support it. >> i can only agree and i'm very grateful to the honorable gentleman for being one of the sponsors of the bill. i will take one more intervention because many people want to stake and time is short. time iseak and shortt. -- short. >> i'm grateful. can i applaud his call because we need to come down this whole debate. i voted for the deal twice. he voted against the deal three times presumably because he thought it was not in the best interest of this country. so how does he think this feature of delaying an agreement further is going to produce an offer from the eu that might actually tempt him into voting something because it's even in the better interest of the u.k. that all that's gone before. how, possibly come up out by
possibly comet about from this procedure? >> the reason why i voted against the deal three times is not really to do with the withdrawal agreement. it was to do with the nature of the political declaration and the absolute lack of clarity about where the then prime minister wanted to take the country. that's my view, and other members have got different views. i'm not going to give way further at this point. i have been reasonably generous, and i am conscious of the time. the evidence before us about no deal, it's important with acknowledge that, because it is the fundamental reason behind the bill. as we heard from my right honorable friend from castleford, it was reported that the cabinet secretary in the -- and the national security advisor had told the previous cabinet that no deal would make our country less safe.
now, if the national security adviser says that to the cabinet, we have to pay attention. all of us have seen the government's own economic assessment makes it clear that no deal would cause the greatest loss to the economy. we know the body that represents british manufacturing industry has described no deal as an active economic vandalism. vandaluiseconomic -- vandalism. since we last debate of the question of an extension, new information is come to light about the consequences that no deal that government itself isn't -- has now admitted it would be detrimental to companies because they are prepared for detriment to companies. they acknowledge it will do economic damage. operation yellow hammer, the report that was published in the sunday times, talked about the potential for protests, for significant delays and we heard
very powerful evidence on that subject only this morning and the brexit select committee. -- in the brexit select committee. the potential impact on medicine, decrease in the supply of fresh fruits and price rises, impact on petrol refineries, huge uncertainty for businesses, serious damage to farmers and in -- damage to farmers, and in some ways, it has expressed the view that the current open border between northern ireland and the republic could be unsustainable because of economic, legal and buyer security risks. i will give way to my honorable friend. >> he made the point about security. we repeatedly have heard in the home affairs committee from senior police officers and security officials about the devastating impact of a no deal brexit.
we hear unilateral security measures not in place? >> i agree with my honorable friend completely. it's one of the many unanswered questions about what happens to the other side? that's a point we will come back to later on. i give way. >> can i just say that members of the party made comments in the media and he, i think said earlier that this bill stops no deal. can we be clear that this bill does not stop no deal, it prolongs the date before we leave? unless something dramatically changes, we will be exactly at this point a few weeks before the new deadline. the only way to stop no deal is to revoke article 50. that's really what members of his side of the house want to happen. they should be honest. >> i would say to the honorable gentleman that if someone says
you can jump off a cliff with all of the damaging consequences in a couple of weeks time or we could put it off for three months, which would you like? i think the sensible course of action given the damage it would do to the country is to put it off. i accept that we ultimately need to find a way forward. i have my own views as to others as to how that should be done -- but that is not the purpose of this bill today although it would provide for a framework within which the government can decide what it will do. >> three independent, highly respected bodies, they have written an open letter to all the mps setting out that there will be significant damage to health care services from a no deal. and more importantly, to people who depend on them. >> i agree with the honorable lady, and i would simply say and other members will have lots of other experience of the potential consequences -- these are not risks that i think we
should take with our economy. these are our livelihoods, and jobs, our health, and i hope they will mind that in the house today that with all the focus on process in motion and procedure, this is about the impact that a no deal brexit would have on the lives of the people we represent. i will, of course, give way. >> i thank the honorable gentleman. isn't that the point, that while i can understand there is a political imperative to get this done, or to move on, the practical imperative is that no deal does not allow us to move on. it leads to many implications that he talked about and if we have no deal on 31st of october, we have to in november seek a withdrawal agreement.
>> the gentleman is absolutely right. we haven't discussed anything like that to what happens to the other side on the 31st of october if the prime minister is able to get his way. i will come to that point in a moment. i will give way. he plans to prolong no damage as far as the 31st of january. the current deal we've got will damage the funding. the best way to stop any damage at all is to revoke article 50. i have written an amendment to that. it needs the prime minister's signature. i disagree, respectfully, with the honorable gentleman, because just as no deal is unacceptable in my opinion, i think revocation to cancel the whole result and referendum is not acceptable either. i express previously in the house my view about how we
should resolve this, but other members have different views and that is not the issue. i will give way. i'm particularly grateful to the right honorable gentleman in which he is chairing the brexit select committee and taking this vital evidence. isn't that really the point? this is precisely the sort of work that should be done. questions should be asked, and be making should sure that we are ready for no deal and yet what we are seeing is we are being closed down next week when in fact we should be sitting, asking the questions and his committee and others should be able to do that valuable work. >> you are absolutely right. we cannot scrutinize the government.
>> exactly. >> does the honorable gentleman agree that it would be surprising that there are to be those in his house and no more about making cars than those and make cars, more about building planes than those who build planes, more about engineering than the engineers, and that the simple truth is, the overwhelming and unmistakable voice of the world work industry and all the employers organizations and the trade unions is that a no deal brexit would have catastrophic consequences with tens of thousands of workers losing their jobs, making our country a poor country in every sense of the word for years to come. my honorable friend makes a powerful point, and those industries and sectors and we have all met them, are troubled that the message that comes from their expectation and knowledge, they are the people creating the wealth in the country, and it's
not being heard by a government that says we are prepared to leave with no deal on the 31st of october. my honorable friend is in the room next door to me, and i will give way and then i will make progress. >> thank you for giving way. i received a letter from the northeast this morning knowing -- england chamber of commerce. -- from the england chamber of commerce. we have been clear and consistent preserving the trading conditions and relationship we currently enjoy it with the eu to be the primary objective of any brexit outcome. -- ought to be the primary objective of any brexit outcome. the government's willingness to embrace no date without an acceptable end to the agreement flies in the face of this. they say is a disastrous outcome for the northeast of england. these comments prove that this is an absolute necessity, this bill? >> i think they absolutely do. it concluded a reflection on other consequences of no deal, i want to turn to what the bill actually does.
it intends to stop this happening by seeking the extension to article 50 in certain very specific circumstances. it's important to understand that the bill allows the prime minister the opportunity to reach a new agreement with the european union at the european council and to seek parliament's consent. that is condition one. it also allows the government to bring a motion to the house of commons to seek their consent for leaving without a deal. if discussions with the european proved proved -- unsuccessful. i think the government would find it difficult to get such a motion through the house of commons but the bill allows us to do that. that specifically -- provides for those eventualities and if
any of those conditions is met, they can -- then there can be no further extension. if, however, neither of these conditions have been met by the 19th of october, chosen today deiliberately, deliberately, it is the day after the conclusion of the european council, than the prime minister must ask the eu for a further extension until the 31st of january 2020 in the form of a letter set up in the schedule to the bill. cause three deals with what happens next. if the european council exceed exceeds that request, then the prime minister must agree to it. if however counsel proposes an extension to a different date, and the prime minister must agree to that as well unless the house of commons decides not to pass the motion agreeing to it. that's what subsection three does. it's been said that the eu could
propose an extension of any length, six months or 20 years. the prime minister would be required to accept it. not so. in those circumstances, the house could decide. furthermore, if a deal is reached after the prime minister has asked for an extension, then it would override an extension so it also allows him, if he can, to reach a deal after the european council concludes on the 18th of october. in other words, i will give way to the honorable gentleman -- in other words, the bill gives the premised or the flexibility that he wants and needs to get a deal if he can. what it does not render is further negotiations. it seems to me is if the prime minister refuses to put together any proposals, which is an odd state of affairs. of course i will give way.
clause 32 is very clear that the period of today begins with the end of the day of the day on which the european council decision is made. we would know very clearly during proceedings on the change of date after the two previous occasions that the government accepted an extension that we were merely implementing a decision that was already made in european community law. what his proposal depends upon is the european union making a conditional offer that only comes into force if they choose to make it conditional on subsequent approval by the house of commons. he has no way of binding the european union's procedures by domestic piece of legislation. >> the purpose of that is if the bill is passed, it will pass in the knowledge it is seeking in
the circumstances for an extension to the 31st of january. if, however, the european union proposes a different date, seems -- it seems to be only right and proper that trhe prim ministerhe prime should be able to say that's fine by me or i will need to go back and check. i agree with the right honorable gentleman that of course we cannot bind to the european union in the weight which it seeks to work will stop, and it's not on all unusual for member states to say we need to go back and check with our parliament. i'm certain, giving the importance of this issue that the european union would be able to find another procedure which might involve the european council meeting again to confirm the decision that it made in making the offer in the first place. the second point i would make is that today's is precisely to -- two days is precisely to give
the prime minister the chance to come back to the house. >> thank you for giving way. this bill doesn't stop no deal, it postpones it essentially. it makes it virtually impossible for our prime minister to negotiate. actually, it tells the european union that if they don't choose to negotiate and give us a better deal, what they will instead get is the opportunity to offer an extension of the path for this house to take. >> i have dealt with the last point, because every day, there is someone the government asking the house not to approve this. the house would have to decide if what has been offered by the european union, but i don't
accept the premise that this somehow undermines the prime minister's negotiating ability. because i don't myself regard the threat of a no deal brexit as part of a credible negotiation strategy. the previous prime minister spent nearly two years saying no deal and it did not seem to work them and i don't think it will work now. i will give way one more time. >> the european union came back and offered us a 10 year extension as the right honorable gentleman has suggested, that it would be a choice for this house for something between the no deal set to avoid. that is not the case. the house could decide to ask the prime minister to go back in those circumstances. -- >> that is not the case.
the house could decide to ask the prime minister to go back in those circumstances. the central point is that it gives the house of commons in those circumstances the ability to express a view, but if the extension is until the 31st of january, we have to be prepared to accept that. only if he does not get a deal, does the bill prevent the prime minister from taking us out of the eu without an agreement. i will give way one more time. >> article 53 of the treaty on european union boldly says that we leave after two years unless -- "unless the european council in agreement with the member state concerned decides to extend the period." there is no obligation for the european union to decide to make a conditional offer. they can decide, and yet the bill requires the prime minister under those circumstances to accept the terms they offer, that's it. this is handing the decision back to the european union. >> i don't agree with that.
and of course, there is no guarantee with any of these procedures that a further request from the united kingdom for another extension would be granted by the european union. it only takes one member state of the european union to say no, i'm not giving them a further extension for us to be in even greater difficulty than we are. what this does do is require the premise to to ask and then to agree to one, because this is what is required to read the prime minister from taking us out of the eu on the 31st of october without a deal. we didn't have to put those provisions in the earlier deal. the former prime minister readily accepted the decision of the house of commons, but we are in different circumstances. i would like to move to what clause two does.
what is the extension for? the answer is to avoid a no deal brexit on the 31st of october. the clause does provide a framework in which the government must publish a report to the house on the 30th of november. and move a motion to the effect that the house is approved a report, so that is the chance for the government to say what are we going to do next. it's something we can point to with the european union because last time, the prime minister said to use the time well and it's important we in the how show we want a further extension than and then to a thumbs for then twiddle our thumbs for another three months. it is a process that is being suggested in the bill if the reported amended or rejected, there must be for the reports from the government on the 10th of january and then every 28 days thereafter until agreement
-- until an agreement is either reached or otherwise indicated by resolution of the house. i think the framework that is in the bill will help answer the question about what we intend to do with the additional time and that will be a matter for parliament. i will give way. >> surely, one of the things we want to do is find a solution in that time to the irish question. is he aware that the eu is iseu commission taskforce reporting commitment to protect the all ireland economy and meaningful north-south cooperation? i have seen those reports, and they concern me. the aim of this clause is not -- the house of leader suggested it's to create a barrier met
government but i would argue it would give us the time to do its job. it's not clear what is happening at the moment. how much negotiation is taking place when no proposals have been made. it's hard to understand that. now, even if agreement was reached, i think it's also important to make the point that it's very hard to see how you could then get the house approval and partial lesgislation between the 18th of october or so and the 31st. the final point i want to make is this, what would happen if we left with no deal? the prime minister talks about uncertainty. -- talks about getting it done and ending the uncertainty. the truth is in the honorable member made this made the points apparently. no deal does not end anything.
it would simply plunge us into greater uncertainty. uncertainty about the degree and length of disruption, uncertainty about the border arrangements in northern ireland, uncertainty about what our future relationship, trading be with otherould members of the european union. given that it's taken three years to get this far, not very far at all, and given that it took canada seven years to negotiate a deal and the premise or says he wants a super canada deal, it will take years to agree to a new relationship and every single eu member state and every single eu parliament will have to agree to any deal. no deal will not be the end of brexit. it will only be the end of the beginning. and in that time, faced with a
degree of uncertainty, businesses will have countless decisions to make about where to invest, what to make and where and what to do about the sudden disappearance of all the arrangements they have come to know and work with them and the sudden imposition of characters. it would be utterly responsible for that to happen. happen. we have a duty to prevented them i hope the house will vote for this. >> the bill will now be read a second time in an attempt to accommodate lots of members who wish to take part. i am obliged to impose a five-minute limit. >> thank you. i rise as an independent member. let me make three points in support of the bill. and to command my right -- commend my right honorable friend about his remarks.
i have no wish to do the same and detain the house. briefly, it's a hill where it assumed block to negotiation, it is not. we don't yet have a deal or might not get one is not this bill. ever since the referendum and we start ofe negotiations, a variety of reasons have been cited to not getting a deal. in no particular order, it's been a remain of the prime minister, the eu, always a different reason. we were told recently that all would be told only if we had a prime minister who was a brexit tear with maslow determination to leave. brexiteer with determination to leave. then the eu would fold we would have the deal that he u.k. always wanted. seven have such an island -- we have such a prime minister [indiscernible] there are two reasons we don't have a deal. members in this house of not
the bench and in the media about those who are trying to prevent no deal, collaborators, traders, language is less than helpful? >> absolutely. that is a good point. why do we want to avoid no deal? for me, there is a threat to the union. i am a scott. my mother and father were from scotland, i am a proud scott, british through and through. i regard this as a terrible thing. secondly, ireland treated by
some here are some sort of a rebel and, place where they have made the border issue in order to prevent us leaving the eu. irrelevant place where they have made the border issue in order to prevent us leaving the eu. with our history in relation to ireland, everything that happens there, they became our best friend in the european union. and our choice to leave has put them in a most catastrophic situation of any country, and we now expect them to accept another english demand that they should do something. have we no understanding of what that relationship means? done?e damage the damage to europe and the relationship with europe itself. i grew up first image -- first generation to avoid war with europe and i arrived in the house of commons when there were giants, denis healey, with billy whitelaw, europe was a place
with her friends at five and -- where friends fought and died. different.omething and that has always motivated me and my sense of europe and whether we are in the european union or not, the relationship with europe is peppered by the kind of language. i don't want to see that threatened by a no deal. i have listened to the right honorable gentleman involuntarily for most of the years i've been here. [laughter] >> most, not all, because i went to campaign and saw him in the election and i think 1984. i don't wish to hear from him voluntarily. let me go on. [laughter] >> thirdly, and in conclusion, let me and where i began, as an -- end where i began, as an independent member. i don't complain of the removal of the voting on an issue of the
rule, but to my colleagues here, think of how this looks. this morning, the conservative party they made the economy we are cheering about. what are people going to think about what we have left -- what we have lost? what are people going to think left andt we have lost? and some happy that some have been purged. one of her colleagues retweeted a looking forward of purging in the conservative party. that was disgraceful and i say to my colleague, if we have been purged now, who is next? watch a film called "good night --that will back up my point.
-- watch a film called "good night and good luck," and -- point.l take my i will leave with good memories of this place with colleagues in the of session of my party to develop. this will not rob me of what i believe. i will look up at the sky when i leave here and not down at my shoes. [cheers and applause] >> order, thank you. order. >> thank you, mr. speaker, it's a pleasure to be speaking in this particular debate. i will start by paying tribute to my predecessor, mr. chris davis worked hard for the community. it was a difficult issue of mental health and suicide in farmers. i thanked him for his service.
chris followed hard on the heels of the highly respected liberal democrat roger williams. those are large boots to fill. if i can partially matches -- match his passion and service and commitment, i shall be very pleased. it is a huge pleasure to represent my constituents. one of the most beautiful in the country. it's also the largest constituency in england and wales. it's something i'm sure some members will have discovered here during the recent by election when searching for another elusive farmhouse of yet another long and scenic tract. we are home to strong and resilient communities. sadly, many of our libraries, banks, and post offices in these communities have closed in recent years. but despite this, there is a
real joy for life. they make sure the mid-wales spirit is alive and well. many members will have had the luxury of making their maiden speeches in the weeks and months following a general election, looking forward to many years of a full parliamentary term. [laughter] i couldn't see more different circumstances. on the night of the election, i've promised the people that i would tell the prime minister exactly why a no deal brexit would be damaging for my constituents. while i am delighted that my very first vote as a member of parliament last night was to help parliament take back control of the agenda and do
everything possible to prevent its leaving the eu without a deal. in this debate today, when it comes to a no deal brexit, we need to stop talking in terms of the hypothetical and theoretical, and we need to start talking with candor about the real and damaging consequences it would bring. a no deal brexit would be damaging for everyone in my constituency. but particularly, for the people who are the lifeblood, the farmers. welsh farmers, 40% of them, and -- 40% of their land, over 90% of that goes to the eu. currently, if parliament and ratna share cannot support the
taxes cannotport support the eu, they are zero. a no deal brexit which means 4% of tariffs go on welsh exports. this would risk putting farmers in my constituency and right across wales out of business. i will be using my vote today to ensure that a no deal brexit is avoided, as it would be catastrophic for the people of my constituency. whether people float to -- vote to remain or leave, they did not vote for a no deal brexit that would make them poorer. they did not vote for long waits for life-saving medicines. and they did not vote for a decline in our country's environmental standards. mr. speaker, i am extremely privileged to be able to serve my wonderful people of
constituency, and i will do my most to be an mp that they are proud of. thank you very much. >> thank you, i think the house greatly enjoyed listening to the honorable lady, and we wish her well. >> mr. speaker, i want us to leave the european union with a deal, and i voted three times to leave the european union with a deal. and i regret the fact that it has become necessary for this bill to be brought forward now. it is necessary now for two reasons -- firstly, because parliament stands paroched so it -- provoked, so we will not have time to bring parliament back within 30 days to see whether the prime minister has been successful in getting a deal, and secondly, because members of government have speculated openly that the government may
not comply with legislation even if it is passed. we need to allow time not merely forlegislation, but litigation, as well. i will give way to the honorable member. >> we have heard noises to that effect from certain members of the government and government sources. if this bill is passed, it's very important that the prime minister adheres to its terms because it is a duty to uphold the rule of law. >> i think we have heard very quickly -- heard very clearly that we cannot rule out the instability of the government interpreting the bill and there will be a need for litigation in the courts to ensure that its effects are enforced. we need to act because there is no mandate for a no deal brexit and a no deal brexit will be a catastrophe for the united
kingdom. i remind my right honorable friends on the front bench that many of us on the back benches have had the privilege of seeing the detailed analysis from within government about the precise and damaging effect of such a no deal brexit. we need to act for another reason, because my right honorable friend, the prime minister, repeated two statements. he says he is sincerely trying to get a deal, and he says we will leave on october 31 come what may do or die. and regrettably, those two statements are incompatible. because even if the fantasy deal the prime minister sets out, where the eu concedes to every demand of the united kingdom, remove every one of its red lines, it would still not be possible to get through all of the stages of process required -- including passage through both houses of this parliament
by the 31st of october. so we had to act. the right honorable member for leeds set out brilliantly the provisions of the bill and how it works. time is limited, so i don't intend to rehearse those arguments. i want to focus on to claims -- two claims made against conservative supporters of this bill or former conservative support of this bill by the government that seek to review them. -- rebuke them. presumably these claims have been made as a justification for the massive purge that occurred last night. the first claim is that by removing the threat of no deal on the 31st of october, we are cutting the leg from under the government in its association with the eu. that is wrong. it is wrong, because there is no negotiation going on. we have had confirmation from multiple sources across the european union that nothing is
happening, confirmation within government that nothing is happening. and the government is trying to bring forward any proposals of those who serve in the european union. and it betrays a deep misunderstanding of the weight -- the way european politics works. yes, european politics is every bit as scrappy as british politics. but across the continent of europe, people who are sworn enemies, who debate vigorously, are used to having to make deals. because for the overwhelming majority of our colleagues in europe, coalition government is the norm. they have a different system from our adversarial system. and so, the eu has taken a remarkably consistent approach throughout these negotiations. on the format of the negotiations, on their mandate, on their commitment to transparency.
they publish everything openly. nothing that we are doing here is going to undermine the prime minister's ability to negotiate with the european union. the thing that will undermine it is his unwillingness to pursue a realistic negotiating objective. if he tries to achieve significant changes to the way the backstop works, that would be a major concession by the european union. but i do think my right honorable friend as the new prime minister leading a new government would stand at least a reasonable chance of getting a hearing and may be succeeding. -- maybe succeeding. but by setting the bar as he has at the total removal of the backstop, he has set the bar at a level which is impossible for the european union to comply with. the second claim that is made against this is by supporting this bill, we are handing power to the leader of the opposition. mr. speaker, i would sooner boil my head than hand power to the
leader of the opposition. but the purpose of this bill, most of us will have no truck with the concept of a vote of no-confidence. the purpose of this bill is to instruct this government and this administration how to conduct the uk's future arrangements with the european union. it is not an attempt to remove this government. it is certainly not an attempt to hand power to the leader of the opposition. and, mr. speaker, it's not us who have heightening the risk of a government led by the leader of the opposition. it is my right honorable friend by pursuing a course of action which if unchallenged can only ead to a no deal brexit. >> i rise in support of this bill. the prime minister has decided the u.k. should leave the eu on the 31st of october with or
without a deal. he says that he's making progress in talks with the view to getting a deal but he's not. chancellor merkel says no proposals have been put forward by the government. the deputy prime minister of ireland says no proposals have been put forward by the government. across the eu, everybody says no proposals have been put forward by the government. yesterday, the government didn't deny that they haven't put proposals forward in these negotiations. they just dodged questions and refused to answer honest questions as to whether there is any evidence of any progress in the talks. they are convincing no one, and the prime minister tied himself completely in knots suggesting that he hadn't put forward any proposals, because this bill might pass later this week. so for the last six weeks, he hasn't done anything in case a bill he hadn't heard of got through sometime soon. ridiculous. so there's no progress. there's no workable alternative
on the table to prevent a hard border in northern ireland. this,t already touched on it's reported yesterday the government is seeking to backtrack and revisit the commitments to protect the economy included in the 27th -- the december 27th joint report. >> i thank the right honorable gentlemen. i was married some two months from the border. is it not arguable that the present border arrangements in the eyes of ireland contribute massively to the peace process which we enjoy? >> they are a manifestation of peace in northern ireland. i have said many times, it is more than a question of getting goods and people across the line. it is the manifestation of peace that allows different communities to live together in peace. thank you, mr. speaker.
i'm grateful to the right honorable gentlemen for allowing me to intervene. would the right honorable gentlemen agree with me that it is very strange to put it mildly -- that bearing in mind that the republic of ireland is our nearest eu neighbor and is also sharing a land frontier and a guarantor of the good friday agreement, is that the prime mr. has been so busy negotiating over the summer, that he hasn't actually found time to go to dublin to meet the irish prime minister and discuss any proposals? isn't that extraordinary? yes. it is extraordinary. but it fits with the other evidence that there aren't any proposals being put forward, and that there aren't any negotiations actually taking place. and therefore, we are not closer
to a deal now that we were when -- than we were when this prime minister took office. in truth, we are further away. mr. speaker, for the prime minister's chief of staff, that appears from leaks to be his policy position. because he talks -- apparently for domestic consumption. i will give way. >> would he reassure me that we will not fall into the trap set by the prime minister and we will not support a general election before it not only this bill is enacted but its provisions, including an extension, have been implemented? >> >> will not be voting the government tonight and keep our focus on the talk at hand which is to ensure we do not leave the eu without a deal, and that in part the
implementation of this act. out of way in just a moment. speaker, the truth is we are on course for a new deal brexit for which there is no mandate from the public or from this parliament. you might think in those circumstances that this parliament would be sitting every available day between now and the 31st of october two of heard this threat, to scrutinize the prime minister's plan, if there is one, and to find a way forward if we can. we would all willingly sit those forward,ind that way but, no. from next week, the prime minister wants to shut this place down for five weeks in this crucial period, and he thinks that we and the public are going to be fooled by the that it isruth merely for a queen's speech.
house is just the to frustrate attempts to prevent a new deal and any suggestion in my view from anyone to the contrary is disingenuous. >> does he agree with me that the characterization of conservative central office which even now is appearing on twitter and in their other social media as we debate this extremely important bill, has tagged this bill be surrender bill is beneath contempt? >> it is beneath contempt, and i can only imagine the businesses, the people who work in businesses, and the management businesses who will look at authority because they have repeatedly told me and many other members of this house their deep concerns about no deal, and we are protecting this country against no deal. mr. speaker, in the circumstances where there is no
progress in the negotiations, we are hurtling towards no deal, but the prime minister is closing down this place. we have no alternative but to pursue this bill. we have to act with urgency and rule out no deal by the time this house paroles. that is what this bill will achieve today. record myke to put on thanks to the honorable members who have worked over many weeks ,n this bill, in particular the right honorable member from the store said the right honorable and learned member from beck concealed, the right honorable a member from the central, and the right honorable member from weybridge, but also because it has genuinely been a cross party .ill and can i on behalf of all my colleagues acknowledge the that the 21 former
conservative mp's who voted as a matter of principle on standing order 24 last night, putting their country before their careers? we acknowledge their courage and what they did as a matter of principle. suchas there been concerted effort? it is not usual to find this for all opposition parties and cross party in t's. it's because we all appreciate the appalling damage no deal would cause two jobs, to industry, to security, and to peace and prosperity in northern ireland. therefore, we were all shocked if not surprised that the warnings contained in the leaked fuel shortages, delayed supports and channel crossings affecting the poor communities of old.
what left out to me from the documents was the honest advice to the government that try as they might, the civil servants could not find a way of avoiding the conclusion that if we leave without a deal, there will have to be infrastructure in northern ireland. i will give way. >> crystal to the right honorable gentleman for giving way. isn't this ironic that on the very week the government announces it will do an advertising campaign, this court gets ready for brexit, simultaneously refuses to what weany detail about will then be getting ready for? better advised to simply be transparent about the impact of no deal and frankly about the fact it sounds to me like there was never a detailed been inere has not
three years, and i worry it never existed in the first place. of course, that information should be put in the public domain so that everybody understands the impact of no deal and the fact that the government does not want it in the public domain speaks volumes. but also, this mantra that we cannot put our proposals in public because you do not negotiate in public, you should surely put them before the partners you are actually supposed to be negotiating with. mr. speaker -- i will give way. >> if there are continual interventions, very large numbers who wish to speak won't do so. >> next to the gentleman for giving way. the was government has been provided a copy of the original document. we encourage colleagues to publish it. i'm not sure that me calling is enough in itself to get it
published but we will see what we can do. i will press on because i know there are other speakers. this is a simple bill. it is deliberately constrained. does not answer the question what else needs to happen, but it gives the prime minister the chance to get a deal and you get it through. it gives the prime minister the chance to have the courage to come to this dispatch box and say, "my policy is to leave without a deal. do i need -- do i have a majority for?" which if he did that, we would not need to go this route, which he will not because he knows the results. only if there is no approval to leaving without a deal to the provisions in the bill kick in requiring an extension. mr. speaker, this is an extraordinary route, but these are extraordinary times. we have to act. we have to act now. today is the last chance to prevent no deal, and we must seize it. thank you.
effect, we nowte need a three-minute time limit. otherwise, colleagues who was for the chance to speak will not have the chance to do so. >> best i can start is by agreeing with something others have said. my honorable friends are acting in the national interest in bringing up the issues in the way that they do. they do not deserve to be name called as a result. i'm afraid having said all that, can i disagree with the bill that the right honorable gentleman has put forward? it does three things -- it sets out that the government should get specific parliamentary authority for any deal that it negotiates. it sets out that it should get for any exitority from the eu without a deal, and it sets out that failing either of those, it should enact a three-month further extension on our departure from the eu.
in my view, the first two are unnecessary and the third is undesirable. into a half minutes, i will try to explain why. on the first, it seems to me that our existing procedures allow for the government to bring forward any deal that it negotiate and for us to approve it or not. it would be an international treaty and the processes are already in place for us to do that. secondly, in relation to a no the rightme, what honorable gentleman and colleague has put forward is on the premise that there is no mandate for no deal. it is certainly true that the leave campaign in the 2016 referendum did not advocate for no deal. it wasn't their preference. as i understand it, it is not the government's preference still. neither was it put to the electorate, neither was up into the electorate that we would only leave if there was a deal. that could never have been guaranteed.
there was no pattern to follow. no example for us to look at. it could never have been certain that the eu would put forward a proposal that we found acceptable. indeed, some of us who argued for remain in that referendum campaign said that if you decide to leave, you take a leap in the dark, you cannot know what the future will look like. you cannot know what, if any, deal we are offered by the eu or by anyone else. the electorate, as it was their absolute right to do, listened to those arguments, rejected them, and decided to leave anyway. it was their decision to make. in my view they were entitled to , make it. >> i thank my right honorable friend for giving way. even if i accepted his main point about the way that the referendum campaign wasn't was conducted, which i don't does he not accept that in a , democracy, minorities have
rights. a minority so big it was a majority in northern ireland and in scotland, should not be so dismissed. >> i certainly agree with my right honorable friend. minorities should not be dismissed. frankly the way in which we , conduct this debate should reflect the fact that 48% of the public voted in a different way to the prevailing outcome. i don't think we have succeeded in that as a parliament or in the broader national debate. the truth of it is, we, parliament set out the rules for , this referendum in the 2015 referendum act. as my honorable friend has just said many of us participated in , that referendum campaign on both sides of the argument. where again we stressed, it was , the public's decision to make. when they had made it, we , parliament, decided to enact and trigger article 50 of the eu treaty. who hasker, as someone
spent more time than is good for anyone looking at article 50, i can tell you it doesn't require the leaving country to do so with a deal. when we decided to trigger that article 50 process, we should of have known that one possible outcome of it was a no deal outcome. not one we wished to see or expected to see, but one that could have happened. i'm afraid that on this fundamental point, i cannot agree that we do not have a mandate for no deal and therefore, we must repeat as the gentleman has set out. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i very much welcome this bill. can i say also that i very much welcome the tone with which my honorable friend introduced it. it reminded me of that famous book "profiles in courage" by john f. kennedy when he said, there are few if any issues
where all the truths and rights and angels are on one side. i think we would do well to remember that in this house. there are coherent, persuasive arguments for points that have been made by people with every single type of view on brexit. we are to respect one another and conduct the debate in that spirit. this is not an easy thing for me to vote for because i have spent the last few years arguing passionately that delay has consequences. companies in my constituency need certainty. the public wants to see us come together and compromise. they want to see us respect the 48% of people who came out and said they wanted close ties with the eu. they want to see us also respect the fact that 52% of those who voted voted to leave the eu. we said it was their choice and we have a duty to be an -- to try to enact it. the truth is that this is the
right thing to do. there are people in my constituency, very many of them who voted remain who now want to see us stop this process altogether. there are a number of people now -- i would say the most significant group -- who want to cut all ties and leave the eu altogether. they shout louder than the others. they often drown out those voices calling for consensus. it is my job to make sure that they don't. they do not have the right to put food manufacturing companies in my constituency out of business. we lived through the closure of the mines in wigan. we live with those consequences still today. it was a tragedy for many families from which some never ever recovered. i will not let the small and medium employers in my constituency who make up the bulk of employment be put out of business because we cannot get our act together as a house , because we cannot stop this reckless prime minister, because we cannot then work together to
achieve the deal that we have promised the people that we will get. they do not have the rights to say to a child in my constituency who is waiting for a potentially life-saving clinical trial, you will not get it. they do not have the right to keep moms who stop me at the train station to say she was stockpiling medicine. they do not have the right to keep her up at night because she doesn't know if her child will survive. that is why i say that this matters. we have finally in this house after years of saying that no , thatas a hoax, a bluff it would not happen, we have woken up to the reality. we have to make sure it doesn't happen. we have to go out and win this argument with the public. walk out of here looking at the sky and not and not at our shoes. >> thank you. >> i rise to support this bill.
before i do so i want to make , clear that i've always believed that the referendum result must be honored. i voted for the withdrawal agreement on every occasion that has been presented to the house, which is more than can be said for my right honorable friend, the prime minister whose disloyalty has been such an inspiration to so many of us. [laughter] speaker, i think history will in due course favor the view articulated so clearly last night. a threat commits an act of self harm if your counterpart in a negotiation did not do exactly as you wish is not likely to be an effective or successful negotiating strategy. the bill before the house today is modest in its ambitions but powerful in its mandate. it merely seeks to affirm the -- avert the immediate risk of a disaster of a no deal exit on
the 31st of october. it seeks to give the government and this house a further opportunity to achieve a resolution of this profound ly difficult issue. contrary to the prime minister's assertion, it does not deprive him of the ability or flexibility to achieve a negotiated settlement with the european union on the 17th of october, but it does ensure that if he should fail, as with his current demand, he is also likely to do so, then there will be time for him to rethink his remarks. mr. speaker i'm not standing in the next election. >> will my right honorable friend give way? will my right honorable friend accept from me what i think is a view shared not just from the but across the house that that will be a great loss to our cardiac >> i'm very, very grateful to my right honorable friend for whom i have such high regards. mr. speaker i'm not standing in , the next election and i am thus approaching the end of 37
years of service to this house. of which i have been proud and honored beyond words to be a member. i'm truly very sad that it should end in this way. it is my most fervent hope that this house will rediscover the spirit of compromise, humility and understanding that will enable us finally to push ahead with the vital work in the interest of the whole country that is inevitably so sad and neglected whilst we have debated so much time to wrestling with brexit. i urge the house to accept this bill. >> thank you. mr. speaker can i congratulate , the member for her maiden speech? i warned her that it may not look like it or feel like it, but normal parliamentary times, i would still be in my first term. there were a number of twists and turns we have seen that she could continue to expect.
as the member from sussex just illustrated so eloquently, there are very few positive to be taken out of this process. one of the few positives have been that those of us who disagree vociferously on many issues are able to cross party lines and reach out. andank him for his speech for his service as well as i do with other colleagues i have had the privilege to meet with. >> i thank the honorable gentleman for allowing me to intervene briefly. he just paid tribute to the work of cross party to secure this bill this evening. would he agree with me that it therucial -- and i know honorable gentleman from clive who is also part of our coalition has made plain his view -- that it is crucial that we not only secure this
legislation in law, but we secure the implementation of this legislation before any election is called or held. that we do not allow the possibility of a reelected johnson government. to then reintroduce a no deal brexit on the 31st of october. >> as usual, the honorable member makes an excellent point on that. we must work together. we want a general election, but we will not have a general election on the terms of this government because we don't trust them. none of us can trust them. we should be absolutely clear on this. over the past few years -- and i say this personally -- it has been humbling to see people give up careers and livelihoods for what they think is right. we have seen the best of that over the past few days.
because there were members opposite and members on these benches who may not have started on these benches know that a no deal brexit will damage their constituents. i never thought i would be here supporting a bill with the likes of these representatives. to be fair to them, i don't think they thought they would be in this position whereby they would be proposing a bill that might go through a member of the scottish national party either. that's the situation we have been left in. let's build something good. like my colleagues we do not , want to see scotland taken out of the european union against its will. i know that others who have signed this bill, who are voting for this bill want to deliver brexit. we disagree on that. that's fine. but we agree fundamentally that a no deal brexit is unacceptable and has to be stopped. this legislation is important. i'm sorry. we have a government that cannot
be trusted, that has tried every trick in the book to avoid democracy. can you imagine over the weekend we were in a situation whereby people could have legitimate questions to the government over whether or not they respect the rule of law. i hope members reflect on that over the coming days. this unfortunately goes to the heart of the prime minister's approach. the least trustworthy resident of number 10 downing street anybody can remember. this is a mess of his making. it's why we are in this position now. he had no plans for further referendums. he has no plans now. there's nothing new in the negotiation. the ministers have told us nothing new.
instead, we have a government perfectly willing to let the rest of the population and are -- endure food pricing crisis when too many depend on food banks already. medical shortages that will hit the needy and most runnable. depriving our young people of education and employment opportunities that my generation enjoyed and benefited from. all of us, all of these people, we in parliament should do our utmost to support and protect. that's the basis of our democracy. the flash and burn approach to politics will damage everybody across these islands and europe for decades. most of all, people within the united kingdom. we can stop this now. we can do so with legislation. we owe it to the most honorable. -- the most rollerball -- we go it to the most vulnerable and those who will be worst affected . thank you. >> i need to refer to the remarks made by the honorable member from bedford. to explain very simply that i was going to
intervene because he was in suing the sacrifice people made in the last war -- i want to put it on record my father was killed in the last war and i think i understand not only the issues involved in that but also the fact that he fought for freedom and i believe that is our heritage and what we should fight for, not to be governed by other people. i just need that on the record. i happen to also very much agree with my right honorable friend the member from kenilworth. ,in what is actually an extremely rare occasion when somebody is actually explaining as i have on my own and number of times that there is nothing in this arrangement that we have been foisted with that would prevent us from leaving without a deal. we can do so if we wish to do so and there's nothing in the , referendum which constrains us from that course of action. fundamentally, a simple he want to make this one point, mr. speaker, and that is this -- i wouldn't call this the european
union withdrawal bill. i would call it the european union subservience bill. i will say that very simply you , only have to look at the words in the bill. in the very short time i have available, i would simply say this. if you look at section one, the words the prime minister must seek to obtain from the european council an extension, under clause three, the prime minister must immediately ask -- notify -- after such a decision be made notify the council of the european kingdom agreeing to the proposed extension. and so on. 4, then in regard to clause it says in relation to the withdrawal act of 2018, where regulations have been made it , says that the definition may substitute must. this is a disgraceful reversal of our constitutional arrangement.
we operate in a free parliament where we have elections which are taken periodically every five years as a normal role. we make our decisions. we have a system of parliamentary government, not government by parliament. that is a fundamental constitutional principle. this bill offends that principle, and that is why i am deeply opposed to it. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i strongly support the bill before the house and i long -- i have long believed that a no deal brexit would be disastrous. resolving this issue and stopping our country cracking out of the eu is of the utmost urgency, as i believe prime minister wants a no deal. all the actions of the current prime minister would support that view and everything he says since becoming prime minister.
he is sending our country hurtling toward no deal. this is a prospect that nobody voted for or campaigned for in 2016. it is simply wrong to be playing with people's lives and jobs and businesses and their well-being in this way. we have the second largest industry of the state in london. it is a vital part of our local economy with a thousand people employed in 240 companies on-site. many of these companies trade throughout the eu. if we crash out with no deal and these companies get hit by tariffs on their exports then it they will suffer. the chancellor yesterday promised to help them but he gave no details on how this would work in practice neither is he willing to publish estimates of the impact of the no deal tariffs could have on various sectors. how much financial support would
be made available to companies, how long would that support last for a? which businesses would or would not be covered by government subsidy? so many questions and out of answers. we have high levels of deprivation that are growing. we have their 40,000 children living on or below the poverty line. brexit, nor a general election -- this is not going to stop. iss nightmare we face here going to exacerbate exponentially the problems my constituents are facing. we hear much about the technicalities of all of this. every time it is debated. particularly today, those who want a no deal brexit or any kind of brexit at any price want to talk all the time about technicalities. i want to see members of this house take real responsibility for the impact a no deal brexit
would have on our constituents , and particularly the most vulnerable of them. this is an abrogation of our responsibility and their representatives to go down this road, and let's be clear, a no deal would just be the start. i believe the only way out of this mess is, in fact, to go back to the people with the people's vote on brexit but at the very least we must take the catastrophe of no deal off the table now. i urge all members to support this bill. speaker i want to put on , record what a pleasure it has been to serve my constituents. i think they would be amazed to know that the conservative party that took place yesterday, the purge led to members of parliament being expelled from the party together with a privy counselors, two for most
chancellors, a former lord chancellor, and a member of rush cliff who has been a political inspiration for me for years. the economic arguments are well-known but in my constituency where the chemicals, car industry, pharmaceutical industry, aerospace industry, nuclear industry and food and drink sectors are all key sectors in the northwest 80,000 jobs are at , risk in a no deal brexit. if we leave without a deal, i do not regret putting my job on the constituents'y jobs. the prime minister forced me to do it. -- i do regret that the prime minister forced me to do it. what i want to say to conservative colleagues is that no deal is not the end of exit. my honorable friend said yesterday he wanted brexit over to focus on other issues that matter to his constituents. i agree.
so do i. i voted for the deal three times , but by keeping the threat of no deal on the table it does not achieve this. i say to my prime minister the reason why your negotiations are undermined is not because of a no deal brexit but because the europeans cannot see the steps that you are taking to build consensus in this house and get any concessions given to you through parliament. that is what puts you in the weaker position, not a threat of a no deal. without the public, without europe seeing how you are trying to build consensus in this house, how this party this government this house this parliament is trying to work together to get a solution, you will not get concessions from europe. it is those people in this house that voted down the compromise , the withdrawal agreement that
have brought us to the brink of a no deal precipice. i believe in the principle that our parliament should have a say in one of the biggest questions of our time. tonight, we should stand up -- i will give way. >> i think she is on a point. that has not been sufficiently emphasize. does she agree with me that at root the horrors we have gone through in the next 18 months for those of us who find ourselves estranged from a party we love actually derived from the inability of successive governments to find a compromise? >> i completely agree and it is the inability of successive governments to work across the house across party to seek , common ground, common agreements and common principles. i am certain i know many people in this place from all political divides that there is a will and , a way to get through.
i just haven't seen the leadership from the front benches to argue for it. that has been my biggest shame in being a member of parliament in this house for the last three years. not seeing proper leadership out there to build our country back together again. to get people to work together and to explain in our constituencies why we should honor the referendum results but do so in a way that maximizes the chances of a positive relationship with europe and giving us the best foundations to build on for the future. that is why i say parliament should have a say in the biggest question of our time. if we cannot get the leadership in the front benches than parliament needs to provide that leadership to the country.
best wishesend my to our honorable member from sussex? hang on, hang on, don't use up my three minutes on this. not for today. mr. speaker, i have voted for a , and i have voted for the withdrawal agreement that is deal more voted for a than some members of the government. i would have to say i have also opposed no deal four times. because i have been trying to seek compromise and a decision we have gone against to the british people on the u.k. departure from the eu has been docked by a lack of compromise and all sides.
hard-line leavers and remainers have been turning a complicated decision into a crisis. between us they are eroding the trust and patience of the british people. this debate today is born of fear, understanding that the u.k. will leave with no deal and this will cause avoidable damage on our economy. it is born of a fear that the prime minister is insincere in his stated intention of reaching a deal for the eu 27. others also have to be self-critical in his house. it is disingenuous to tell the public your against no deal if you're really also against any deal and indeed against brexit. if the eu 27 and except a deal however advised it must be better for the u.k. and the eu 27 by no deal. i urge colleagues that if the amendment -- are selected today
that you supported because what it does, it ties an extension to securing a deal which i think is the proper way forward. i will give way. >> i pay tribute to her for the way in which she has sought compromise. i agree with what she said about the approach set out by her honorable friend. he has considerable potential. would she agree that one of the other reasons we should seek to resolve this by way of a deal and do so quickly is that the longer this argument goes on for, the more divided our society remains and the harder it will be to knit it back together. the danger of an approach that simply asks for a further extension without any real idea of what we will use the extension for is that that argument is part of desperate actuated and the damage continues to be done.
>> one of my greatest concerns in all of this that in a referendum that sought such a massive record turnout that there are many people that we continue to thwart coming to a conclusion on this revolution will never vote again. i am saddened some in this house think our only obligation is to the 48% and others think that we should only consider the 52%. we need to respect the british people whether they voted to leave and remain and whichever party they support. we must show them we can move forward and not want progress at any stage. i need to look my voters in the eye and say yes i respected as a remain voter the decision to leave. we have now left and we will gain control of our borders. four remain supporters who i sit alongside in 2016, i say yes we respect the decision to leave the we have protected the things
that you and i value the most. open trade with you, workers rights, high environmental standards, respecting eu citizens working here, student exchange -- i could go on. all of these can be secured but only with a deal. no deal is a decision, but one that defers a hundred decisions. i urge the government to secure a deal before the 31st of october, and i'm willing to work every day and every hour to make that happen. i say to colleagues, you also have to show compromise as well. you must make an extension to securing a deal because an extension with no purpose is not the way forward. >> order. i would like to call two more speakers but i want the secretary of state on his feet no later than 4:50. i think i agree with virtually everything she says. it is a pleasure to listen to my
right honorable friend from northeast bedfordshire and mid sussex, with whom i served for 36 years. i know they do not want to stand again, but if they were standing, i would want to stand with them shoulder to shoulder as a conservative candidate. there are procedures for dealing with this sort of issue. i very much hope that those like my right honorable friend who did vote for their conscience i don't agree with him but he did vote for their conscience can find a way to stand again for our party. the problem with purges is you purge one group of people you , may have to purge another group of people for instance , when you try to push a deal for parliament. i think we do need compromise . that's the whole point of what i want to say today. i am a bit of a minority because i am a brexit here. my constituency voted 62% for brexit.
i have voted for this deal three times. we have heard how terrible no deal is. but so many people voted against the deal three times. we could have had brexit by now. this whole thing could have been resolved. i still believe that it is possible to make progress in these negotiations in the coming weeks. so much ink has been wasted on the backstop. so much debate on an issue about something that will never happen. i don't believe i don't think anyone believes for a moment the backstop will ever happen. nobody intends to oppose a hard border. there are so many ways to resolve this that we are actually this close -- this close -- to resolving this issue. there has been so much talk about how we don't trust the prime minister he wants no deal. i genuinely believe that he and the cabinet want to achieve an orderly brexit. the problem they face at the moment is that the present deal simply can't get through parliament so they have to make progress. we had the amendment we can win a vote in its place.
i don't want to make a border of -- a bore of myself by going on. they are all possible. the trouble with this bill is that if it is passed and i know it's been said many times before, there is absolutely no incentive for the eu to make any progress on this. -- i end with an an argument that might appeal to the labour party. in the october 1957 labour party conference someone said if you pass this motion you will send the foreign secretary naked into the conference chamber. that is what we will be doing if we pass this bill.
let's compromise, let's draw together and get a deal. >> thank you, mr. speaker. statements have made it crystal clear that the very existence depends on a u.k. of avoiding a no deal brexit. we know the challenges, every car manufacturer does, but everyone has pulled together to make it work, but now we have the absurdity of the government actively pursuing a policy which would destroy the industry. we know we will not be able to compete with a 10% albatross around the industry's neck. no deal means no voxels. i have always said i would abide by the amendment, but that does not mean at any cost.
i understand that any government which is that course of action, so let's be clear about where we are. the conservative party has purged itself of 21 members the voting against apology which stated 10% of the economy. if anyone had set a year ago that's where we find ourselves i wouldn't have believed you. such is the reckless ideological madness that we have on the benches. that is exactly where we are today. the prime minister tells us he cannot negotiate with the eu if no deal is taken off the table. i'm also as many members -- at a loss to understand how we can reconcile the first thing the eu asked in respect of many proposals is whether they have the support of parliament.
with his refusal to actually share his proposal of parliament, how can he say we the votes if we don't even know what they are. employs thousands of people in the area whose jobs are at-risk from a no deal brexit. i have just come from a briefing not declares the sector is ready for a no deal brexit on the 31st of october. at the moment, we face businesses going for -- going bust. let alone the effect it will have on medicine supplies. let's pull ourselves back at the let's have a moment of clarity 11th hour. compromise so we don't force brexit october regardless of the consequences, because the concerts will be devastating, enduring, and will do nothing to heal the deep
divisions that let us here in the first place. secretary of state, steven barclay. >> thank you, mr. speaker. may i begin by paying tribute to the new member. he spoke with great distinction on behalf of her constituency. may i on a personal note pay tribute to my colleague from mid sussex and the member from ? rtheast bedfordshire the central issue, mr. speaker, before the house with this bill is whether into the government's negotiation is sincere and deliverable. the opposition has continued to refuse both to support a deal but also make clear that they will rule out a no deal and as a member pointed out, there is an inherent contradiction in that position. the problem with this bill, mr.
speaker, as my friend, the member from gainsborough, made clear is that there is no incentive on the eu to move because the bill gives the eu complete control of the outcome of these talks. let me remind the house that a turk -- president tusk and others within the eu have repeatedly said that they do not want the u.k. to leave. he said the deal is impossible and no one wants no deal then who will finally have the courage to say what the only solution is? let's not be in any doubt. those on the other side of the negotiation don't want the u.k. to leave. they don't want to lose the 12% of the financial contributions to the eu budget that the u.k. plays. the one billion pounds a month that this extension will cause and therefore in short there will be no incentive for the eu to move. this in practice will be legislation that will act as purgatory and endless delay.
>> he describes the negotiations as a sham. is it true that members of the government legal service have been requested to provide advice and the last two days on all tactics possible to avoid this bill receiving royal assent? is that true? the prime minister addressed the issue yesterday in terms of that rule -- he said the negotiation is a sham. yet one should look at what the commission themselves have said. they said alternative arrangements have merits. as an alternative to the backstop. just last month the council pledged in its official guidelines flexible and imaginative solutions. european figures claim that the backstop will not be required --
a member said there was a 99% chance that a backstop would never be used. the issue arises because of the sequencing of the talks at the choice of the eu themselves. it left sufficient time for the negotiation where this issue should be addressed as part of the future economic relationship. mr. speaker, in an issue such as the claim made on the benches opposite it's worth reflecting that the eu has moved in their position.
the language of no change -- two now saying will there can be changes. it's worth contrasting donald trump comments in june but nothing has changed when it comes to our position to president emmanuel macron's comments saying he was confident that the u.k. and eu would be able to find a solution if there is good will on both sides. >> thank you for giving way. is it the truth the members on that side of the chamber known more than the sight of the chamber just do not trust the prime minister? when he went on the 21st of august he committed to granting a deal. we're no a third of the way through the timetable and the truth is there is no deal that's the problem. >> he said -- he voted against the deal with the previous prime minister brought back three times. the trust is lacking in those who trusted the manifesto the promised to respect the referendum results. it is worth looking at the communique i'm sure members will have read it at lunchtime today. they have seen that communication first of all very
little detail from the irish board and second that it is subjective in a situation that will be more stable -- a more stable solution for the time thereafter. if the communique falls short of the text to which they have set as a condition to the united kingdom. legal text on the 31st of october will of course have detail but the test needs to be one which allows flexibility on both sides. it also needs to reflect the fact that the operational details will be shaped by the joint committee during the implementation period itself. as an illustration of this point can be seen as a response to details resented by the previous governments. one spoke but his concerns in terms of detail. he will well remember that set against an all weather test, simply presenting details against that test of the commission with the previous government -- it's not purely as magical thinking. thank you
>> thank you. on ants has been rewarded minority basis. the brexit secretary will be well aware that the prime minister has claimed in august contraveneskstop the good friday agreement. would the right honorable gentleman take the opportunity to correct the record that the backstop in no way compromises the consent principle and the good friday deal? i think it's very important to have that on the record. >> their seat of issues that's the to that point. firstly, the concern the prime minister has. secondly the element of consent from both parts of the community in northern ireland and the concern that that is undermined
by concerns -- and to address the earlier intervention she made an intervention in respect to contact with the irish government. the prime minister is discussing the issues around alternative arrangements on monday and that bill is on considerable other interaction for example i -- the british embassy in paris last week the foreign secretary met him as well in the same way there has been extensive contact with the irish government. the prime minister is in brussels today. he has a last round of technical talks last week. he will have further talks on wednesday exploring much of this detail.
the detailed needs to be in place at the end of the implementation time which is the end of 2020 or potentially by mutual agreement in one or two years. >> that time is realistic and it is negotiable. >> mr. speaker, the bill -- the issue for him is he talks about voting against the deal because against no deal and he should come clean and admit that what he is -- what his position is is he is opposed to brexit entirely. >> mr. speaker the public wants , brexit delivered. the business community wants certainty. this bill will leave our negotiations in purgatory with a third extension after more than three years. much has been made about parliamentary time. about the time between now and the 14th of october. the eu themselves say that a deal would not be struck until the 11th hour, that it would take the eu council decision on
the 17th to reach a decision. so the issue is not the time that is spent in september. the issue is the time between the 17th of october in the 31st of october. mr. speaker, over the summer, this government has narrowed down its negotiating act as set out in the letters. it is targeted its request only withdrawal agreement. this is a bill that is intended to stop brexit. i urge colleagues to oppose it. >> order. the house agreed yesterday i'm now required to put the question. the question is the bill be raised a second time? [voting] announcer: after approving that bill to block a new deal brexit -299, the house7
of commons debated another measure on whether to hold a special general election on october 15 at the support of prime minister boris johnson. of prime minister boris johnson. >> the honorable gentleman has made his own point in his own way. it is on the record and we are indebted to him. i think the ayes have appeared in order. we now come to the motion. to move the motion, i call on the prime minister. >> the house of commons has theed a bill devised by leader of the opposition who i .ee is not in his place as he