There can be honourable disagreements and i have had disagreements and i have had disagreements with each and every one of them. All of them. That has led to many votes in this house which havent always been entered into with the certainty of the outcome more effectively, but both sides have always done so safe in the knowledge that this parliament is sovereign. That this parliament can act as an effective block on any abuse of power. Therefore today i am urging allmps abuse of power. Therefore today i am urging all mps from all sides to stand up for what is right, to stand up stand up for what is right, to stand upfor stand up for what is right, to stand up for what you believe in and support this cross party move. |i thank my right honourable friend. Does my right honourable friend agree that if we are to trust the Prime Minister that a deal is on site, he would do all he could to show evidence of the progress he has made in negotiations over the summer and publish the government proposals . I think my friend makes a very pertinent point because in the six weeks or so since the Prime Minister took office, apparently no proposals have been put to the European Union, there has been no substantive negotiations, and he keeps talking about the possibility of progress being made. One would have thought he had something practical to report to this house by this stage and so far. As a motion comes forward in the week for a general election in october, will he vote for it, yes or no . We are ready for a general election, we are ready to ta ke for a general election, we are ready to take on this government and when a general election to end austerity and poverty across this country. Just look. Mr speaker, just look at what we face. A government determined to subvert the democratic process , determined to subvert the democratic process, to force through a policy which a majority of this house does not support, which has been defeated emphatically twice in this house. We face a government so determined to continue on its reckless path, they are willing to use every trick in the book and find every loophole to try and silence this house. We cannot stand idly by. In 2015, i think i am correct in saying that the leader of the opposition voted for the referendum. That he mean to abide by what the referendum came forward with . Yes, the labour opposition supported the referendum, we took part in the referendum campaign, we also made it very clear in the general election that we would not countenance a new audio exit from the European Union because of the damage it would do. No deal exit. We cannot hope for another opportunity down the line to stop this governments destructive cause. There is no more time, this is our last opportunity and today, mr speaker, we must act. Thank you for giving way. Many constituents of mine in midlothian have contacted me, very worried about the grave danger of me, very worried about the grave dangerofa me, very worried about the grave danger of a new deal brexit and the effect that would happen. Can you give account of what will happen to people across the country in the event of a no deal brexit. People across the country in the event of a no deal brexitlj people across the country in the event of a nodeal brexit. I was in scotla nd event of a nodeal brexit. I was in scotland and we heard concerns from many people about no deal brexit, particularly those who trade extensively with europe, about the damage it will do to their businesses and the jobs that go with. He says he wants to avoid no deal, but three times he has voted against the deal. Exactly what changes to the Withdrawal Agreement with you like to see if he will ever vote for it . I thinki am right in saying on two occasions i voted alongside the Prime Minister against those deals as well. Mr speaker, i understand that mike i will give way later on. I understand there are people from both sides of the house under a great deal of pressure and what is regrettably an extremely volatile political climate. But if you truly trust in what all the analysis shows, including the governments loan analysis as was demonstrated earlier, if you believe in what the experts say and if you understand that no deal brexit will be disastrous for this country then you must act now. With that in mind i want to pay tribute to those who have showed the political courage to boldly stand up for what they believe and to bring this debate to the house. The bullying and the threats to mps opposite from their own sides is unprecedented. Let me just offer. It is all right, i am trying to help you. Let me offer some words of encouragement. Standing by your principles doesnt a lwa ys standing by your principles doesnt always damage your future prospects. Cani always damage your future prospects. Can i suggest that he is careful with his selection of evidence. The treasury, the imf, the bank of england all made predictions of doom and gloom if we voted to leave in 2016, they said there would be Economic Disaster by christmas 2016. They were all wrong. What has happened since as record unemployment, record manufacturing and record investment in the full knowledge that no deal is better thana knowledge that no deal is better than a bad deal. I thank the member for that intervention, the only problem as it flies in the face of all facts as they are published they n and day the value of the pound is falling, manufacturing and industry is falling and they will come onto other industries cd at the outset. I also pay tribute to those people across all parties who have come together and continue to work to make a stand against this governments reckless and shambolic approach. The Prime Minister says no it is not the time for parliament to make the stand. He says the chances ofa make the stand. He says the chances of a brexit deal are improving and that the outlines of an agreement are in the making. Yet all the evidence points to the contrary. So far, and six weeks in office, this government has spent more time trying to avoid scrutiny and trying to silence parliament than focusing on getting a good dealfor this country. And with weeks to go until we crash out of the European Union, they have failed to bring forward any new proposals, especially with regard to the irish backstop. Even if they had worked up new plans are presented in a way forward, it seems very unlikely the eu would have agreed to the Prime Ministers red line of scrapping the attorney general reportedly put it, such a proposition would be a complete fa ntasy. Proposition would be a complete fantasy. The reality as there has been no progress made in brussels nor is there likely to be. This reckless government only has one plan, to crash out of the eu without a deal at whatever price to our industry, the peoplesjobs and a deal at whatever price to our industry, the peoples jobs and the peoples Living Standards. I have given way many times on that side and will continue. And that is why so and will continue. And that is why so many people across this house will stand up to say no to no deal. It has been exposed today, as reported in the telegraph, which says the Prime Ministers chief of staff called negotiations a sham, and the real strategy was to run down the clock. That is why it is incumbent on us as members of parliament to act today. Voting to block no deal will not kill the positive momentum in brexit negotiations because there is no momentum in the brexit negotiations to kill what we are asking mps today to do is rule out playing russian roulette with this countrys future. With that industry, with our National Health service and with peoples jobs and livelihoods all at sta ke for peoples jobs and livelihoods all at stake for they are trying to retain power. Lets not forget what no deal means for this country. No deal will decimate our manufacturing industry. No deal will destroy their agricultural sector. I am sure my honourable friend knows that the we st honourable friend knows that the West Midlands group of mps have had lots of consultations, and a meeting tomorrow, with businesses in the we st tomorrow, with businesses in the West Midlands because they are concerned about the implications of no deal. My honourable friend not agree it is imperative we get a proper deal to safeguard the millions ofjobs proper deal to safeguard the millions of jobs up proper deal to safeguard the millions ofjobs up and down the country . Indeed, my friend is right, the West Midlands will be particularly ha rd the West Midlands will be particularly hard hit because so much of its industry relies on just in time deliveries from the continent as well as exports to them and the manufacturing process that any interruption process happens whatsoever there is chaos immediately at the point of production as well as the transport system which supplies those places. There has to be some realistic understanding in the south of the implications of a no deal brexit on the West Midlands as well as on other parts of this country. I have given way many times to many people and given way many times to many people and i am sure the honourable member will make a wonderful contribution when he gets to make his speech. No deal threatens peace and stability in Northern Ireland and threatens our policing and counterterrorism operation with europe. No deal will mean Food Shortages and medical shortages and that will bring chaos to our airports and transport networks. When earlier on we had a minister at the dispatch box proudly telling us that 1000 more staff had been employed in order to deal with congestion that will be happening at the channel port. Isnt that an indication of the governments own admission of what the problems will be for leaving with no deal. Our economy is already fragile. The economy is already fragile. The economy contracted in the last quarter. Manufacturing has contracted that the fastest pace for seven contracted that the fastest pace for seve n yea rs contracted that the fastest pace for seven years and contracted that the fastest pace for seven years and no contracted that the fastest pace for seven years and no deal with accelerate that decline. Now is not the time to play russian roulette with our economy. These are the warnings of some ultra remaining group. These are the warnings outlined in the governments own assessment and the warnings of industrys leading figures. You dont have to take my word for it, instead listen to the likes of make uk, who represent 20,000 uk manufacturing companies, who have said leaving without a deal would be, and said leaving without a deal would be, and i quote, the height of economic lunacy. Listen to the National Farmers union which said a no deal worth, and i quote, have a devastating impact on british food and farming and must be avoided at all and farming and must be avoided at a ll costs. And farming and must be avoided at all costs. Our lesson to the british medical association, which has made it clear, and again i quote, the consequences of no deal could have potentially catastrophic consequences for patients. The Health Workforce and services and the nations health. We must listen to what every sector of society is telling us regarding the damage of a no deal brexit, and what it will do to our society and our economy. If we asa to our society and our economy. If we as a parliament do not make the stand today, there may not be another opportunity. It may simply be too late. We must listen to those warnings. If people in the house no better than the bma, the nfu, uk about their own sectors, or know better than the trade unions represent people who work in those parts and facilities all over the country, they should say so now. I have met trade unionists all over the country and spoken to the tuc. They are all deeply worried about the continued job losses in manufacturing because of the uncertainty that no deal will bring. I understand there will be some concerns regarding the potential bell which may follow this debate. Some concern from members across the house that supporting such a bill would be an attempt to block brexit or reverse would be an attempt to block brexit or reverse the results of the 2016 referendum. That is actually not the case. This bill does not close other options to resolving the brexit pass. This bill is about preventing a damaging no deal with which this government has no mandate for and for which there is very little public support. The bill is designed purely to provide vital breathing space to find an alternative way through the brexit mess this and the previous government have created. Today, mr speaker, is another historic day in parliament. It is our chance to seize this last opportunity, to stand up to a bullying government that has shown itself ready to dodge scrutiny and silence debate. If we do not act today, we may not get another chance. Whether people voted leave or remain, they didnt vote to shutdown democracy as the very large numbers of people who are on the streets last saturday from both leave and remain the views were very concerned about the way in which this government is trying to shut down debate, shutdown democracy, and lead to assent to what i believe would be the problems of a no deal brexit. So, mr speaker, iurge would be the problems of a no deal brexit. So, mr speaker, i urge all mps today to do what they believe to be right for their constituents, they arejobs, their be right for their constituents, they are jobs, their Living Standards and their communities and support this proposal today that we may debate the bill tomorrow and prevent a no deal brexit with all the damage this would do to our community and our society. The leader of the house, mrjacob rees mogg. Leader of the house, mrjacob reesmogg. Thank you, mr speaker, and it is a pleasure to be speaking in this debate brought to us by the right honourable gentleman the memberfor right honourable gentleman the member for dorset western to follow the leader of her majestys opposition. The Prime Minister has said including in a statement earlier this government is absolutely committed to delivering brexit on 31st october. We must deliver the largest democratic mandate in the nations history. Delivering the referendum result requires this house to respect the voice of the people as expressed in that historic vote and so far of the house has failed to do so. And now, instead of backing the Prime Ministerand giving him instead of backing the Prime Minister and giving him the best possible chance of securing a deal before the uk leaves the European Union on 31st october, we find ourselves debating a proposition that seeks to confound the referendum result again. Mr speaker, i wish to be clear, what is proposed todayis i wish to be clear, what is proposed today is constitutionally a regular. Regular. Today is constitutionally a regular. Regular. Could i remind the house, how many times that he vote against the deal . The deal is dreadful, it is why the Prime Minister is getting a better one if only the house would let him. This is irregular both in terms of the subversion of parliaments proper role in scrutinising an executive. I give way. Thank you, mr speaker. Iron are mostly grateful to the right honourable gentleman for allowing me to intervene upon him. He will know the importance of the good friday agreement to the people of Northern Ireland, and he will also know, as a unionist, that without a deal that will be an inevitable hardening of the border between the republic of ireland and Northern Ireland. Which will incentivise sinn fein to advocate for the border poll to take Northern Ireland out of the United Kingdom and then to the republic of ireland toa and then to the republic of ireland to a united ireland. How on earth could be right honourable gentleman defend the indefensible . Because i simply disagree with the honourable lady, but there would have to be a political desire to impose a hardboard that political desire to impose a ha rdboa rd that and political desire to impose a hardboard that and neither United Kingdom nor the republic of ireland government has such a desire. |j thank the right honourable gentleman for giving way and i have a fondness for giving way and i have a fondness for him from time at the Committee Years ago. What is constitutionally irregular shutting down parliament, shutting down debate on shutting down the ability of mps to hold this government to account. Can the right honourable gentleman tell me when it was he became aware of the payments ares planned to shut down parliament in order to force down a no deal brexit because papers today suggest it was the plan on 16th august . As parliament has not been shut down i could not be aware of plans to do something which is not happening. My right honourable friend will be aware that the majority of members, colleagues, voting against the government tonight voted to trigger article 50, which said that we would leave the eu with or without a deal. It was very simple and very clear. Which bit does he think they know dont understand . I think they dont like losing referendums and they never accepted it but i must come back to the constitutional issue. Because this motion risks subverting parliaments proper role in scrutinising an executive initiating and you particularly, mr speaker, have a great responsibility of which iam sure have a great responsibility of which i am sure you are well aware, to uphold the norms and conventions which underpin our constitution, but we all have a role to play and it does considerable damage when some of us choose to subvert rather than reinforce , of us choose to subvert rather than reinforce, to handle rather than to polish our constitution. |j reinforce, to handle rather than to polish our constitution. I thank the leader of the house are giving away and he is talking about the subversion of democracy. Im going to ask very clearly, on what date did you first become aware of the plan to prorogue parliament, and secondly, can he tell us whether any in his office have been conducting communications away from normal channels in such a way that it would not comply with the terms of candour and disclosure necessary for the Court Proceedings currently taking place. If people were carrying out discussions without kind that i wouldnt know about them so i therefore wouldnt be able to tell therefore wouldnt be able to tell the honourable gentleman that they happened or not but i carry out all my discussions with candour and if anyone is interested the privy council function is reported. I will give way. My right honourable friend as being extremely generous and friend as being extremely generous and i am gratefulfor him giving way. If we were to leave the eu on a new deal basis, effectively we would operate on wto rules. Given that the eu currently operates with a number of countries on wto rules, including the us, china, russia, argentina, australia, new zealand and many other countries, with my right honourable friend agree with me that we should not be as fearful to trade on wto rules outside the eu, given that we are already trading on wto rules inside the eu . My returnable friend makes a brilliant and incisive point, he is absolutely right, so we need to examine what is being put forward to the house and to consider this very concerning and odd aspect that is actually being permitted in the first place. Let us look at s or 24 and the approach we are taking. As you know, i take an interest in the euros of the house. Of course i will give way. Very grateful. I was astonished to hear him agree that we would be perfectly all right proceeding on wto rules. Does he accept that wto rules will require the European Union to apply tariffs against their agriculture, fisheries and much of our manufacturing in line with the tariffs imposed against other third Party Countries . And wto rules will require us to have a closed border in ireland in order to e nforce border in ireland in order to enforce those restrictions. You cant have it one way or another. You either obey the wto rules or you ignore those as well and pretend that some phantom never never land youre going into. You do not simply set calmly the argument that wto rules would do no damage to our economy. I must confess i am surprised by my right honourable lerner trends astonishment because i have been making the case for the beta euros for some time. It has beena very beta euros for some time. It has been a very sensible way to proceed and will allow us to carry on trading as we do with many other countries, but my right honourable learner trend. Countries, but my right honourable learner trend. I am very grateful to my right honourable friend for giving way. He says that the houses role as one of scrutiny, and i ee, role as one of scrutiny, and i agree, but does he not see that there is an incompatibility between that scrutiny and in fact taking steps through prorogation to deprive us steps through prorogation to deprive us of the effect of opportunity to carry it out, and when considering it he may also agree that so much in this house depends on trust. How can we have trust when there have already been a number of examples of the government making inaccurate statements, such as for example that the papers prepared for its briefing on yellowhammer were the product of a Previous Administration when they we re a Previous Administration when they were not, and secondly, and perhaps most pertinently, over prorogation, when it appears that the facts stated by the government as to the reasons for prorogation have turned out to be entirely inaccurate, now causing the government considerable difficulties over its duty of candour in litigation. When you aggregate all that together perhaps my right honourable friends might begin to understand why many of us have finally decided that this house must take action. My right honourable friend is very learn it but his learning doesnt always return and the right direction. Prorogation is completely routine. The opposition front bench, when i was first banned in the last that this dispatch box, was asking for the session to be brought to an end. We we re the session to be brought to an end. We were merely being over obliging selves and leading forward to a new queens speech and the general course of events. In due course, because we always like to hear from the honourable gentleman who informs and educates us when he speaks. We are going to have to wait, mr speaker, for his informing and educating but i like to keep people on tenterhooks because i wish to talk about erskine may, our old friend, and this sets out your role and the chief characteristic attached to the office of speaker in the house of commons, authority and impartiality, and it would be disorderly, wrong and not my intention to question your impartiality. But like the umpires at edgbaston who saw eight of their decision sent for review and overturned, accepting somebodys impartiality is not the same as accepting the infallibility. And it is worth noting, as a wise and scholarly speaker once said, indeed this wise and scholarly speaker said as recently as last year, that a debate held under Standing Order 24 could only be held on a substantive and amendable motion of the standing or that is itself amended. In april 2008, and the light of two emergency debates on the uks decision to take military action in syria, you yourself said it is perfectly open to the house to amend Standing Order number24, of to the house to amend Standing Order number 24, of which there is some uncertainty and often and comprehension. It should be amended to allow for the tabling of substantive motions and circumstances of emergency which can also be amendable and on which the house can vote. If there are any members who are interested in that line of enquiry, they could usefully raise it with the chair of the procedural committee. As far as i am aware, procedural committee. As far as i am aware , no procedural committee. As far as i am aware, no change has been made to Standing Order 24, yet the decision has changed. Now i will give way. The leader of the house said earlier that parliament is not being suspended, but actually in this case it is. He knows perfectly well that select committees will not be able to set, there will be absolutely no proceedings of parliament as according to the bill of rights. No proceedings while parliament is prorogued. I only wanted prorogued for 45 days so we can do ourjob of scrutinising the government. That is the point. We want a queens speech but we want to build the come back and do our job. But we want to build the come back and do ourjob. The honourable gentleman knows the procedures of this house only too well. He knows that we were about to go in some cases to the seaside for party conferences, and the case of my party to a major city centre, and thatis party to a major city centre, and that is why we are taking four or five days of parliamentary time and simply going over the normal recess. That is not in any sense and abuse andi that is not in any sense and abuse and i will give way. I am grateful to the leader for giving way. Can he go back to his point about Standing Order 24 . It does seem to me he is absolutely quite correct, and the speaker in his previous statement was correct, that this could not be ona was correct, that this could not be on a substantive motion. If this motion is carried tonight, which appears to be a substantive motion, it seems to me the government would have every right to ignore it. |j know that the honourable gentleman will not presume to argue with the judgment of the chair and titled as the expression of his opinion. What i would say to the honourable gentleman in order to help him, and to assess the leader of the house is less. F in thejudgment to assess the leader of the house is less. F in the judgment of the chair a motion under Standing Order 24 it is expressed in neutral terms, it will not be open to amendment. If it isjudged to be will not be open to amendment. If it is judged to be expressed will not be open to amendment. If it isjudged to be expressed in neutral terms. The reality of the matter is there have been previous occasions upon which there have been Standing Order 24 motion debates which have contained what i would prefer to call evaluative motions, notably, with which i am sure the leader is familiar, on 18th march 2013 and on 11th december 2018. It is in conformity with that practice that i have operated. I have taken advice ofa have operated. I have taken advice of a professional kind and i am entirely satisfied that the judgment that i have made is consistent with that i have made is consistent with that advice. My attitude is simply to seek to facilitate the house. The leader rightly referred to my responsibility, which was grave and solemn. I completely accept that as well as i accept his right to his own view about myjudgment in this matter. I have sought to exercise my judgment in discharging my responsibility to facilitate the house of commons, to facilitate the legislature. I have done it, i am doing it and i will do it to the best of my ability without fear or favour, to coin a phrase, come what may, do or die. Iam i am grateful as always mr speaker for your contribution to the debate and it is always very useful that your words should be referred to and reminded to the house where it was suggested by you that this matter should be referred to the Procedure Committee and the motion amended which it has not been. Theres so much to say and so little time. Others will want to speak. This motion in a number of ways is extraordinary. I will give way. Going back to the matter raised about it being revealed in court this morning in a case raised in my name that on the 16th of august the Prime Minister agreed to a suggestion that parliament should be prorogued on the 9th of september. But on the 25th of august in number ten spokesperson said the claim that the government was considering proroguing parliament in september in order to stop mps debating brexit is entirely false. Does the right honourable gentleman except that the spokesperson misled mps and the public on the 25th of august. Im sorry to say, mr speaker, but the most obvious understanding of the ordinary use of the english language which normally the honourable lady is pretty good at makes it quite clear that the two statements are entirely compatible but progression is the normal prorogation to have a new session and not to stop debate on matters relating to the European Union. Of course it is a pleasure to give weight to the honourable gentleman. The right honourable gentleman. The right honourable gentleman spoke about the need for candour and that means he has to accept when we come to the wto, or countries by about three in the world and regional trade associations, the three that are not our south sudan, somalia and east timor, probably some joint ever hard brexit comes by the uk. Given that this other countries are in trade associations they do not exclusively trade on wto rules so when he talks about wto he is taking the uk to a place exclusively trading on wto which is moving out of free trade with 500 Million People to make trade more expensive that is his policy. And progression on the 16th of august, did you know about that. I was at lords watching cricket. But on the wto issue a trade with the United States on wto terms, it has grown faster since the creation of the Single Market than our trade with the European Union. |j understand his views and his concerns about the constitutional, supposed constitutional irregularity of these proceedings and no doubt the future all this can be debated. When we accept that we stand as a nation at present at a moment which will have a profound effect on the welfare of our people and that the Sovereign Parliament of this country clearly deserves an opportunity to be able to decide whether it will accept a policy of no deal exit or not and that that overwhelmingly matters more than whether the Standing Order 24 b, in all probability mistrusted by the then leader of the house has a particular meaning or not. There is a stunning arrogance i am meaning or not. There is a stunning arrogance i am sorry meaning or not. There is a stunning arrogance i am sorry to say to that view. And it fails to understand where sovereignty comes from. I do indeed dare to say this and i say that to the right honourable gentleman. Order order. I recognise there are strongly held views on both sides on all aspects of this matter but the leader of the houseman to be heard. Sovereignty in this house comes from the british people and the idea that we can overrule them as per prospers and the idea that that our rules do not exist to protect the people from arrogant power grabs is mistaken. Those rules are there for the protection of the people. I have given away so many times and too many distinguished members and it is now time to come on to this motion which is extraordinary and unprecedented. Parliament is attempting to set aside Standing Order number14 to attempting to set aside Standing Order number 14 to give precedence to the eelsjewel member six bill for that this motion goes further and seeks to claim an unknown and unquantified number of subsequent days for consideration of amendments and messages. It is a fundamental principle that government is able to transact its business in his house, principal that this house has long accepted in Standing Order number 14. This motion also sets aside in a new parliamentary session the Standing Orders that apply in relation to the presentation of private members bills. The motion would allow a designated member, a few of the room that hed take a post on themselves to give that as a presentation to the spill on the first day of the new session and then provide time for debate on this bill on the second day of the new session interrupting the queens speech. There is an established process for the house debating the queens speech, a process that this bill would undermine. While the bill has a First Reading before the start of the queens speech debate this bill is only read a first time as a formality and not debated. 20 entrap the queens speech to debate a backbench bill such as that proposed in this motion would be unprecedented. The government has an obligation to bring forward its business and the queens speech and debate that follows is one of the great set pieces of the parliamentary calendar where the government is rightly scrutinised and held to account and this is being interrupted. |j and held to account and this is being interrupted. I wanted to come back to a point made by the honourable gentleman for wellingborough. He said we would be taking back control of our laws so can he be clear tonight that if the bill passes in this house that the government will not stop that getting royal assent if we are taking back control of our laws. The door will be followed, this is a country that follows the rule of law and this government assiduously follows Constitutional Conventions unlike some other members of this house. I understand that another wishes to speak. This is a breathtaking intervention by the memberfor west dorset breathtaking intervention by the member for west dorsetjust breathtaking intervention by the member for west dorset just now breathtaking intervention by the member for west dorsetjust now and in support of my right honourable friend and his assertion that it was weighed with great arrogance would my right arm orfriend be good enough to confirm that in fact the referendum bill is enacted was a sovereign act of parliament which deliberately gave the rights to the british people and not to the british people and not to the British Parliament to make the decision on the question of remain or leave. The honourable gentleman is right and we report anyway to the british people as they are our bosses. I would like to thank him for giving way. Back to the bigger picture. The Prime Minister made it clear in his speech last night and ina clear in his speech last night and in a Statement Today that his preferred outcome is to leave with appeal. Can the leader of the house confirm that that is also his preferred outcome and that if a deal is agreed at the next European Council sufficient time will be made in this chamber to make sure we have legislated for that deal . The honourable lady is right and i can say both personally and as bound by collective responsibility that i am in favour of a deal. We must allow other people to speak. I see that times winged chariot is speeding away and i must get on the separation of powers. The debate that were having today goes to the heart our constitution. The rails of the executive and parliament. These are matters of careful balance. It is for government virtue of its ability to command the confidence of this house to exercise executive power. This includes the order of business and bringing forward legislation. It is for parliament to scrutinise, amend, reject or approve. Indeed the scrutiny of the executive is one of the Core Functions of parliament. These complementary and distinctive roles are essential to the functioning of the constitution, ministers are of course accountable to parliament for their decisions and actions and parliament can make clear its use. It is not however for parliament to undertake the role and functions of the executive. Constitutional convention is that executive power is exercised by her majesty is government which has a democratic mandate to govern. That mandate is derived from the british people and represented through this house. And mr speaker, when we look at this constitution we are protected by our rules and by our orders and by our conventions. We will remember that it is those rules, laws and conventions that protect us from the whims of tyranny and if we take away those protections is the right honourable gentleman proposes we lose our protections and it is therefore on the basis of this convention that the government and not parliament is responsible for negotiations with the European Union. Parliament as a whole cannot negotiate for the uk, this is the role of the government in exercising executive power to give effect to the will of the nation for the biz rails are fundamental and underpin the countrys and codified constitution, the government draws power from parliament. The government draws power from parliament. But the government may at any time be removed by the tried and tested motion of a confidence debate. And the fact that parliament has not been willing to go down this route, the fact that the opposition are afraid of this route, the fact that the opposition ran away from the confidence vote route is because they do not bear have the leader of they do not bear have the leader of the position as head of the government and they are frightened. The honourable lady says there is time but let me say as leader of the house that if they want a motion of confidence this government will always make time for it and obey the Constitutional Convention but they are afraid, they are white with fear because they do not want the right honourable gentleman to be in number ten downing st for the eye will now give way. Im grateful to my right honourable friend and when he agreed with me that if this has succeeds in stripping our Prime Minister of the key negotiating card of an no deal the likelihood of that outcome would be that much accentuated. It makes the negotiations much harder, my honourable friend is right absolutely. But now let us turn to the substance of what we are debating. Ostensibly the purpose of the bill is to stop no deal but the government wants a deal, we are willing to sit down with the commission and eu Member States to talk about what needs to be done and to achieve a deal. This must involve the excision of the anti democratic backstop. The government has also been clear that we must respect the referendum result in the uk will be leaving the eu on the 31st of october whatever the circumstances. Unless and until the eu agrees to negotiate we will be leaving with no deal on the 31st of october. My right honourable friend the chancellor of the duchy of lancaster has made a statement earlier today in which he informed the house of all that has been done to ensure that we are ready for all eventualities. The that we are ready for all eve ntualities. The good that we are ready for all eventualities. The good boy scouts that we are well prepared and i will definitely give way. Does he not realise that in proroguing parliament for five weeks which is the longest prorogation right in the middle of a political crisis that there has been since 1945, his government and he has deliberately prevented scrutiny that would be legitimate in his house and hence the situation we find ourselves in now. And when he when he gets back up now. And when he when he gets back up at the dispatch box confirm that if this bill is passed through this house and passes the other place he will speed the royal assent and his government will not act against the law. I do not wish to be pedantic but. We have been watching some of the debate on the emergency order 024. The debate on the emergency order s024. Just to fill you in on the process this is the attempt tonight to ta ke process this is the attempt tonight to take charge of the Parliamentary Business tomorrow, not the legislation in and of itself but of course legislation in and of itself but of course the intent of those opposed to no deal is to put forward a bill tomorrow to try to ensure that Boris Johnson cannot take the uk out without a deal if he does not get an agreement by the end of october. I have two people who have been very patiently watching events with me. Conservative mp nigel evans and labourmp conservative mp nigel evans and labour mp seema malhotra. Nigel, something significant and having today and the conservative party lost the majority. Phillip lee officially joined lost the majority. Phillip lee officiallyjoined the lib dems, he told us of the summer he was reflecting what he ought to do when we got a new leader of the conservative party and it clearly does not like him. And all the brexit legislation to be fair we had lost phillip lee anyway. I think he is now with the right party. So you would want an election this point. Alison to borisjohnson would want an election this point. Alison to Boris Johnson last would want an election this point. Alison to borisjohnson last night speaking to tory mps and he said he did not want an early election but also he has been preparing for one andi also he has been preparing for one and i think that is a wise thing to do. Alsojeremy and i think that is a wise thing to do. Also Jeremy Corbyn and i think that is a wise thing to do. AlsoJeremy Corbyn has been preparing for an early general election for the past two years. If in the position of saying the labour party in the next few days, if we lose the vote tonight and tomorrow, then the impasse will be there for borisjohnson who said then the impasse will be there for Boris Johnson who said that we have to leave backed up on the 31st. The labour party and a few of our rebels will instruct him to go to brussels and ask foran will instruct him to go to brussels and ask for an extension which she says is not going to do. How to get out of that past, state you know that early election you have been asking for, there it for it. We watched the momentum crowd go past saint stop the coup and we had a labourmp saint stop the coup and we had a labour mp saying there is a squatter in numberten so labour mp saying there is a squatter in number ten so canJeremy Corbyn if presented with a motion for a general election tomorrow really refuse . We need to see how it goes tomorrow because we have been clear that this is about stopping no deal and there next couple of days. We have to put the country ahead of all of us at the moment and it is true that i do believe that boris is squatting in downing street and trying to gag parliament for the it is kind of a smash and grab raid on parliamentary democracy. Its extraordinary that we have someone who calls himself Prime Minister with the kind of schoolboy theatre that he displayed in parliament today, this is not a serious Prime Minister. That is why epic people are worried because this is not about a kamikaze way in which we leave the eu, his whole debate has to be about our country and the future of our country and parliamentarians on all sides those who voted leave and those who bow to remain, many of them will be concerned about the impact and devastation no deal would bring to our country as well. This is something that needs serious parliamentary scrutiny. One interesting thing about you being here during the debate is that we have been able to game out what might happen so lets say the vote goes for the Rebel Alliance tonight, tomorrow he presents the motion for a general election which labour might not grant him. The bill goes through and we get to friday and they have taken no deal off the table and at that point what could happen, give me some scenarios that might happen. I think we have to wait until then because it is not clear what will happen and whether boris would bring forward his proposal. It is not clear whether we will end proposal. It is not clear whether we willend up proposal. It is not clear whether we will end up with a vote of no confidence and then that would come from the opposition. So you can foresee a scenario where they may be a no confidence vote to try and put a no confidence vote to try and put a unity government in place rather than an election . A vote of no confidence may well lead to an election and that is one consequence of it. The issue i think when i spoke to colleagues today and it is the first day back for many that working out the scenarios we are taking every day as it comes. The most important thing and you see the word rebel but i do not like that terminology because colleagues are colleagues on all sides right now and this is a serious issue on which people have different views and that is the kind of talent we have been using in the debate today for the people concerned about what will happen with business, families, eu citizens rights, with what was raised today in parliament, what database the raised today in parliament, what data base the police raised today in parliament, what database the police will have access to in terms of tackling crime. And also we know 100,000 vacancies in the nhs much more difficult to fill with no deal. Your party may be presented with the opportunity for a general election and would rather run away from that it is not true that we would rather run away from it. I asked one labour mp about it this morning and he said he would lose a general election. The issue is with conservative colleagues as well, there is a sequencing issue and it is changing day by day and hour by hour but what is extraordinary is we have a tory party turning in on itself were even the grandson of Winston Churchill is facing the threat of deselection for the better is a pretty serious matter. One factor of this debate is the lack of trust that the government is serious about finding an alternative to the backstop. 13 days into his 30 days he has to come up days into his 30 days he has to come up with an alternative the opinion and up with an alternative the opinion and i think we still have not been presented with anything. When boris met Angela Merkel she gave him 30 days and he said he was up to that challenge for the bear working 24 hours a day. Where is the evidence of some negotiation . Itll be something that will take longer than 30 days. But he said today he would present something in 30 days for them within the 30 days and that is them within the 30 days and that is the challenge that he faces. So hes not trying to run down the clock customer Angela Merkel gave him 30 days but Michel Barnier said we will not remove the backstop, that has to stay but clearly in negotiation means that both sides have to come together otherwise it is not the negotiation. We will reach the 31st of october, boris said he would not ask for an extension and my own request, if parliament over there cannot deliver what the people voted for in 2016 then give the people a chance at least to change their parliament and have a general election. Or are people split on the final deal. Do you have the numbers tonight . I think we do. They had it before but of course tomorrow may be a different ball game. But tonight is being treated as a vote of confidence and that means it is line whip on the toys and they must vote for it otherwise as intimated when we fight back next general election then of course they may not be selected as conservative candidates. It is externally what theyre doing to their party and to our democracy. We will find out by 10pm. Always happy to knock it about with you, thank you very much. Lets go back to the debate. Parliament would never accept that we are ready to leave or we could simply revoke and tell 17. 4 Million People they were wrong. The approach taken today is the most unconstitutional use of this house since the days of Charles Stewart parnell when he tried to bung up parliament. Usurping the executive rights is unconstitutional, the abuse of emergency debates to do so is unconstitutional and the bill itself is yet more unconstitutional for the all conventions have one ultimate object, to secure that parliament or cabinet shall in the long run give effect to the will of the people. These conventions are being disregarded today. And so by extension is the will of the nation. Parliament sets itself against the people. Sovereignty comes from the people. Sovereignty comes from the people to parliament, it does not come to parliament out of a void if parliament tries to challenge the people this stretches the elastic of our constitution near to breaking point. We should recognise that the people are masters and show us to be there lesions and servants not to place ourselves in the position of their overlords. As we come to vote today i hope all members will contemplate the current constitutional confusion and considered the chaos that these circumstances could create. It is a pleasure to follow the leader of the house. I should pleasure to follow the leader of the house. Ishould remind pleasure to follow the leader of the house. I should remind them lord cooper and the court of session said that the parliamentary sovereignty isa that the parliamentary sovereignty is a purely english concept that has no counterpart in scottish constitutional history. In scotland the people are sovereign. But of course the people are sovereign. But of course will be a matter of importance as the people of scotland decide what the future will be. I have to say i am rather surprised by the right honourable gentleman who has always been a student of the rights of this house. The harsh reality is the reason we are in a situation that parliament has been prorogued is because the Prime Minister has instructed three stooges to go to balmoral to give an instruction to the queen to shut this place down. And for all his pronouncements that this is the level it most certainly is not normalfor level it most certainly is not normal for people to be prorogued for five weeks. And the simple reason is because the government is running away from the powers and responsibilities that this house has. It is shameful and disgraceful and in that regard im deeply honoured and privileged to endorse the motion in the name of the member for west dorset. To date the Scottish Government has launched an Ambitious Programme for government aimed at tackling climate change, building afairer aimed at tackling climate change, building a fairer economy, reducing inequality and improving the lives of citizens across scotland. A government getting on with its day job. 12 years into government it is still focused on making life better for those in scotland. But if government in holyrood is stepping up government in holyrood is stepping up to meet the challenges facing scotla nd up to meet the challenges facing scotland in the world westminster is quite literally shutting down. Very much a tale of two governments. The snp is doing everything to move scotla nd snp is doing everything to move scotland forward but the threat to our economy and society from the right wing brexiteer cabal occupying downing street cannot be mitigated away. They must and they will be stopped. Shannon is what reports say the ministers and advisers have called his eu negotiation strategy. Sham. Running down the plot is what the telegraph has reported those close to the Prime Minister saying his strategy is, a complete fa ntasy saying his strategy is, a complete fantasy reports say the attorney general advised the Prime Minister of his approach to the backstop. The leader of the snp and has a common speaking in this emergency debate this evening and mps opposed to no deal are attempting to take control of the legislative process tomorrow. Will bring you live coverage of the debate this evening and the vote when it takes place just after 9 30pm. For viewers in the uk continuing coverage will come on Bbc Parliament and we will also stay here and bring you reaction to this debate. Shutting down parliament, ripping up democracy. We have continuing coverage from westminster. Christian fraser will be live with you from the top of the hour. Youre watching a bbc news special. We are live at westminster, where an emergency commons debate is under way to try to force the Prime Minister to delay brexit. The Prime Minister has told mps in the commons to reject the bill, saying it would destroy any chance of an agreement with the eu. Thats what they want. To undermine our negotiations, to force us to beg, to force us to beg for yet another pointless delay if that happens, all the progress that weve been making will have been for nothing. The motion was presented to the house by conservative mp sir oliver letwin. He said the government had failed to provide