European Council Summit Statement House of Commons

lady is always attentive to her responsibilities and in the grisly

event it is necessary for her to raise a further point of order I am

sure she won't hesitate to do so. Statement, the Prime Minister.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. With permission, I would like to make a

statement on last week's European Council. Long after we have left the

European Union, the UK will continue to be a strong and committed

partner, standing alongside our neighbours and working together to

advance our shared srls -- values and interests. This Council provided

a further opportunity to demonstrate that ongoing commitment through

discussions that included migration, the digital single market, Turkey,

North Korea and Iran. And it made important progress in moving towards

the new deep and special partnership with the European Union that we want

to see. First on migration, the UK is playing its full part. The Royal

Navy has intercepted 172 smuggling boats and saved over 12,000 lives

since operation Sophia began. While our National Crime Agency is working

with Libyan law enforcement enhancing their capability to tackle

the people smuggling and trafficking networks. At the Council we welcomed

the reduction in migrant crossings and the renewed momentum behind the

Libyan political process. But we must also continue to address the

root causes driving people across the Sahara and the Mediterranean, so

the UK is also continuing to invest for the long-term in education, jobs

and services, both in countries of origin and transit. On the digital

single market it is right to up the pressure on completing

implementation by the end of 2018. This will continue to be of benefit

to us even after we leave the European Union. At this Council I

also argued that the free flow of data is key to unlocking the

potential of Europe's digital trade and we secured conclusions which

recognise this. As the Government set out in a paper over the summer,

such arrangements will be an important part of the future

relationship between the UK and the EU. Turning to the discussions on

Turkey. We share the concerns over the arrests of E nationals and

others defending human rights. This is something I raised personally

with President Erdogan when we met. We are publicly calling on Turkey to

protect freedom of expression and release those defending human

rights. At the same time, I believe we must take a long-term view of the

enduring importance of our relationship with Turkey, a vital

partner in ensuring a secure and prosperous European neighbourhood

and we must also continue to recognise the challenges they are

responding to, not least that they faced a military coup only 16 months

ago. We must continue to work with Turkey as our ally in partner, in

particular as we respond to shared challenges of terrorism, migration

and instability in the Middle East. But in so doing, we must do all we

can to convince Turkey to demonstrate its commitment to human

rights and to the rule of law. To turn away from Turkey now would

undermine those who seek to secure a European future based on our shared

values. On North Korea, we welcomed the EU sanctions adopted last week

and reaffirmed our clear condemnation of North Korea's

aggressive and illegal missile and nuclear tests. We urged all states,

including China, to play their part in changing the course Pyongyang is

taking. And on Iran, the Council built on the joint statement made by

Chancellor Merkel, President Macron and myself last week, reiterating

its firm commitment to the nuclear deal. This deal was the culmination

of 13 years of diplomacy and a major step towards ensuring that Iran's

nuclear programme is not diverted for military purposes, that is

vitally important for our shared security. And we are continuing to

work particularly closely with our French and German allies on this

crucial issue. Turning to our negotiations to leave the European

Union, I shared the vision I set out in Florence for a creative and

pragmatic approach to a new deep and special partnership between the

United Kingdom and the European Union. A partnership based on the

fundamental beliefs we share in democracy and the rule of law, but

also in free trade, rigorous and fair competition, strong consumer

rights and high regulatory standards. I have also been clear

that the United Kingdom is unconditionally committed to

maintaining Europe's security. Both sides have approached these talks

with professionalism and constructive spirit and we should

recognise what has been achieved to date. On citizens' rights, both

sides share the same objective of safeguarding the rights of EU

nationals living in the UK and UK nationals living in the EU. This has

been my first priority from the beginning of the negotiations and it

remains so. The negotiations are complicated and deeply technical.

But in the end they are about people, and I am determined that we

will put people first. EU citizens make an extraordinary contribution

to our life and we want them to stay. I know that EU member states

also value the UK nationals living in their communities and I want them

to have their rights protected too. We are united on the key principles

and while there are a small number of issues that remain outstanding,

we are in touching distance of a deal. This agreement will provide

certainty about residents, healthcare, pensions and other

benefits. It will mean that EU citizens who have paid into the UK

system and UK national who is have paid into the system of an EU27

country can benefit from what they have put in. It will enable families

who have built lives together to stay together and it will provide

guarantees that the rights of those UK nationals currently living in the

EU and EU citizens currently living in the UK, will not diverge over

time. We will also ensure that the implementation of the agreement we

reach does not create complicated and bureaucratic hurdles, for

example, I have said that applying the settled status will cost no more

than a UK passport and that people applying will no longer have to

demonstrate comprehensive sickness insurance. We will also do

everything possible to work closely with EU member states to ensure

their processes are equally streamlined for British nationals

living in their countries. We have also made significant progress on

Northern Ireland. It is absolutely imperative that joint work on the

peace process is not affected in any way. The Belfast Agreement must be

at the heart of our approach and we have clearly agreed that the unique

circumstances across the whole of the island of Ireland will require

specific solutions. There will not be any physical infrastructure at

the border, and we have also developed joint principles to ensure

the continuation of the common travel area. These principles will

fully preserve the rights of UK and Irish nationals to live, work and

study across these Islands and protect the soernted rights to

public services and social security. This Council provided an opportunity

to assess and reflect on how to make further progress in the

negotiations. My speech in Florence made two important steps which have

added a new impetus. First, I gave two clear commitments on the

financial settlement that the UK will honour commitments we have made

during the period of our membership. And that none of our EU partners

should fear they will need to pay more or receive less over the

remainder of the current budget plan as a result of our decision to

leave. As the House would expect, we are going through our potential

commitments line by line and that detailed work continues. Second, I

proposed a time limited implementation period based on

current terms which is in the interests of both the UK and the EU.

At this Council the 27 member states responded by agreeing to start their

preparations for moving negotiations on to trade and the future

relationship we want to see. The Council conclusions call for work to

continue with a view to being able to move to the second phase of the

negotiations as soon as possible. And President Tusk in his press

conference was clear that the EU's internal work will take account of

proposals presented in the Florence speech and indeed that this

agreement to start preparery discussions would not be possible

without the new momentum given by that speech. So I am ambitious and

positive about Britain's future and these negotiations. If we are going

to take a step forward together it must be on the basis of joint effort

and endeavour between the UK and the EU but I believe by approaching

these negotiations in a constructive way, in a spirit of friendship and

co-operation, we can and will deliver the best possible outcome

that works for all our people and that belief was shared by other

European leaders. We are going to leave the European Union in March

2019. Delivering on the democratic will of the British people. Of

course we are preparing for every event annuality to ensure we leave

in a smooth and orderly way but I am confident that we will be able to

negotiate a new deep and special partnership between a Sovereign

United Kingdom and our friends in the European Union. That is my

mission, that is this Government's mission and I commend this statement

to the House. I would like to thank the Prime

Minister for advanced copy of this statement and I also underlined the

importance of the spec for human rights and democracy in Turkey and

say to the government of Turkey, imprisoning journalists and lawyers

is not part of that process and is not acceptable --. And also that we

also need to defend the Iran nuclear deal which has been rightly defended

at the EU Council last week and we must all do everything we can to

defend it to prevent the proliferation of any nuclear

weapons. I commend also the service of the Royal Navy in operation as a

bit which the Prime Minister has pointed that has saved thousands of

lives but in relation to Libya, nothing is more pressing than

securing a viable long-term peaceful settlement to their problems. Given

the language used by the Foreign Secretary in this matter, the Prime

Minister may need to take a lead on this just as she has had to take

over the lead from the Brexit secretary on negotiations with the

EU. I am now beginning to feel a worrying sense of Groundhog Day

here. Every time she gives us an update on the progress of

negotiations, only two weeks ago she told this house that her speech in

Florence had put momentum into the Article 50 negotiations. And that an

agreement on a phase one of these talks was within touching distance.

Here we are again, after another round of talks, and we are still no

clearer as to when negotiations on the future of Britain with our

largest trading partner will actually begin. And still no clearer

as to what exactly she has agreed to in phase one of these talks. In what

are the most crucial negotiations of our country's recent history we are

clearly stuck in an impasse, no real progress and no progress at home.

Especially given the withdrawal bill has been delayed to presumably allow

the government whips to try to pull together the splits in her own

party. Maybe she can shared some light on this confusion, a confusion

that has only been escalated by members of her own government. For

instance, the Home Secretary says no deal with the EU would be

unthinkable. The Brexit secretary still maintains no deal must be an

option while the Secretary of State for International Development says

that leaving without a deal would not be the Armageddon that some

people project. Does the Prime Minister believed an outcome that is

not Armageddon might be setting the bar a bit too low? Mr Speaker, the

Prime Minister will also be aware that leaders of every major business

organisation have written to her today urging clarity and quickly.

Across the UK businesses in every region and nation are clear, they

need a transition deal with the EU to be put in place as soon as

possible so they can take investment decisions, in order to protect jobs

and investment in this country. I know the Prime Minister has talked

about the need for an implementation period after we leave the EU but she

has not been clear about the terms and conditions of that. Can she tell

is now what she means by accepting the same basic conditions in an

limitation period? Surely this can only mean remaining within the

single market and customs union for the transition period as Labour has

made clear. On EU citizens rights, the Prime Minister said again and

agreement is in reach. Can she tell us when the detail of that agreement

will be ready to bring to this house and, more importantly, to all those

people in this country and in the EU who are desperate to know what their

future holds for them. This could have been dealt with 16 months ago.

Instead, families are suffering anxiety and some EU citizens are

deciding to leave, including nurses from our National Health Service. If

that had been resolved, as it should have been, then hundreds of

thousands of British nationals would also have the security they need.

And will be promised to tell us what will happen to the specific

agreement on the citizens right if the government fails to secure a

final Brexit deal with the EU -- will she tell us? Will the Prime

Minister now do the right thing and guarantee the right of citizens

living in the UK regardless of the outcome of Article 50 negotiations?

On the financial settlement, clearly some within the EU need to stop

briefing out astronomical and unacceptable numbers. But will the

Prime Minister... Will be Prime Minister confirm reports that she

privately assured European leaders that Britain would pay more than the

offer she had previously made in her Florence speech? If this is the

case, is she confident this would pass the red lines set out by the

Foreign Secretary a few weeks ago? Mr Speaker, the Prime Minister hails

the progress she has made so far in these negotiations. The biggest

battle she faces is not so much with the 27 European states, the

Chancellor so deftly described as the enemy, it is her battle to bring

together the warring factions of her own Cabinet and party. And the Prime

Minister is too weak to do anything about it. The outcome of crashing

out with no deal to become a deregulated tax Hoban, the dream of

a powerful faction of her back benches and front benches would be a

nightmare for people's jobs and living standards -- tax haven. The

message from Labour is different and clear. Only Labour can negotiate a

Brexit and deliver an economy... Order. The Prime Minister's

statement was heard with courtesy and so will the response be. No

further discussion on no comment required, that if the situation.

Jeremy Corbyn. Thank you, Mr Speaker, I was making it clear that

Labour's message is different and very clear, only Labour can

negotiate a Brexit and deliver an economy that puts jobs and living

standards first and that is what we are ready to do.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. First of all I welcome the comment that the Right

Honourable gentleman made on the Iran nuclear deal, it is important

that across this house we agreed that we should continue to support

that deal. I also agreed that what we want to see in Libya is a

peaceful settlement that can enable that country to be stable and

peaceful into the future and I think it is important that we all support

the work being done by the UN special envoy in relation to this

issue. He asked about the Brexit bill, what I set out the European

Council was what I set out in my Florence speech and have just

repeated in my statement. He talked about us making no real progress, we

have not reached a final agreement but it is going to happen. I would

have a degree of confidence that we will be able to get the point of

sufficient progress by December. After the Florence speech there is a

new momentum and that was a step forward and there should be a

positive response to the willingness to work on the interim period and

there has been established momentum. As it happens, those are not my

words, they are the words of Chancellor Merkel, the tea shock --

the Swedish primaries, the Italian and Polish and Danish by ministers

and I can assure him that progress was made. The Labour Party to talk

about the need to move ahead in the negotiations. If they think it is so

important to move ahead, why did Labour MEPs vote against moving

ahead in the negotiations? And he talks about the withdrawal bill as

if this was something that Labour were eager to see and if they are,

why did they vote against it at second reading? And in doing so,

vote against bringing workers' rights and environmental standard

into the UK law? And finally he spent a long time in his response

talking about no deal. I can only assume that the Labour Party want to

talk about that because they simply don't know what sort of deal they

would want. They can't decide whether they want to be in the

single market or not, whether they want to be in the customs union or

not, they can't decide whether they want a second referendum or not,

whether they agree with free movement continuing or not and worse

than all of that, they say they would take any deal whatever the

price they were asked to pay. That is not the way to get a good deal

for the UK, it is the way to get the worst possible deal for the UK.

Mr Speaker, is it not clear that damaging delay will be coursed if we

don't make progress soon and the main problem is that other European

leaders can see that a noisy minority in the Cabinet and on the

backbenches of her own party have persuaded themselves that no deal at

all is completely desirable? This causes them to doubt whether she is

able to produce a clear picture of where she eventually wants to go and

whether she is able to produce the majority here for any agreement they

have with her. Has she considered, she may have an overly, appointing

some trusted minister to make approaches to leading members of the

opposition parties to see if they will live up to some of the things

that the leader appears to say and perhaps do better so that at least

we can have a consensus in this parliament in the national interest

on the outline of a transitional deal at least that would enable us

to negotiate the final details and arrangement that the majority of

this house could agree is in the long-term interests of the UK? I

have to say to my right honourable and learned friend that that sounded

rather like a job application! Can I just say to my right

honourable friend, that what was clear from my interaction with

European leaders is that they recognised that the vision I set out

in the Florence speech for that deep and special partnership for the

future and also for the implementation period did bring

clarity into the thinking of the UK. It is now, and the 27 have agreed,

for them to consider what they want to see from the future of that

relationship so the next stage of the negotiations can indeed begin.

Can I also thank the Prime Minister for advance copy of her statement.

Mr Speaker, I welcome some of the conclusions from the Council summit,

Piccadilly on migration and the stronger commitment on resettlement.

We also welcome the united approach on sanctions against North Korea and

fully endorse the EU call for it to abandon its nuclear and ballistic

missile programme. However it is of deep concern that the ongoing crisis

in Catalonia was not covered. EU citizens were brutally thrown to the

floor while exercising their right to vote, a parliament stripped of

its constitutional status. Can the Prime Minister tell because what

representations she made to address this democratic outrage? Mr Speaker,

last week the EU 27 voted unanimously to declare there had not

yet been sufficient progress on leaving the EU. It is clear that the

negotiating sticking points are the same as before on the financial

settlement, EU citizens rights and the Irish border. There was a

poignant mark made, that nobody explained the first place to the

British people what Brexit absolutely actual -- actually meant.

How true and no wonder this government is in such a mess. Today

the UK's five biggest business lobby groups have called for an urgent

transition deal, time is running out for the business community and

financial institutions are already giving notice of leaving London.

Ireland as clinched deals with more than a dozen London based banks to

move. Ernst Young have warned 83,000 city jobs could be lost if

the UK loses it Ukip Peshmerga EU clearing rights. This is uncertainty

and we need to know the details of the future trading relationship at

any transition deal before the end of the year. It is absolutely

critical that we stay in the single market and the customs union. Will

the Prime Minister end her government's catastrophic

ideological flotation of a no deal scenario and take that of the table

and do it today? First of all, can I say that I have

spoken to Prime Minister Roja on the issue of Catalonia on a number of

occasions including when I saw him at the European Union Council. We

are clear that the referendum had no legal basis, we want to see people

upholding the rule of law and the Spanish constitution. Now, on the

wider issue that he talks about in terms of the future relationship

with the United Kingdom with the European Union, I have set out the

vision that we have for that. As I have just said in answer to the

leader of the official opposition, the EU27 will now be looking at

their vision for this. But I am sorry that I have to repeat again to

the right honourable gentleman because this is an issue he has

raised in the past, that membership, full membership of the single market

and full membership of the customs union go with the jurisdiction of

the European Court of justice and freedom of movement. These are

issues which were voted against when people voted to leave the European

Union. They would effectively mean that we would remain in the European

Union and we are going to leave in March 2019. May I say to my right

honourable friend that she may wish to answer some of those who want

certainty by reminding them that you can not have agreement on an

implementation period until you have something to implement first and

foremost. Secondly, could she explain that during the course of

her discussions the private ones she had, the ones that the acting

President of the European Union hasn't actually put into the papers,

but her private discussions, could she just say whether she reminded

her colleagues in the European Union that to reach a proper free trade

arrangement they will need to have concluded those discussions before

the summer of next year otherwise it will be difficult to get those

through in time, both in the European Union or here and did she

get an answer about when they might like to start?

Well, can I say, thank my right honourable friend because he is

slightly right, as we have said on a number of occasions, the point of

the implementation period is to put in place the practical changes

necessary to move to the future partnership and in order to have

that you need to know what that future partnership is going to be.

He asks about, I have obviously in my discussions with other leaders

raised the issue of a timetable that we have. Of course the ultimate

timetable that was set by the Lisbon Treaty and my right honourable

friend talks about knowing the details of the trade deal by next

summer, of course Michel Barnier suggested October 2018 might be the

point at which it will be necessary to know that but my right honourable

friend is absolutely right that of course there will need to be a

period of time for ratification of any future rarngmentes by the

various national parliaments. As we know that can be more than one in

some of the countries concerned. Can the Prime Minister explain why it is

frequently said by those with whom we are negotiating that they do not

know what the UK wants when it comes to a long-term deal and does she

think it has anything to do with the fact that the Cabinet appears not to

have reached its own view yet about what the nature of that... This is a

negotiation and there will be different levels of detail at

different stages of the negotiation. I have set out the vision for our

future partnership and as I have said in response to a number of

remarks now, what happened at this European Council was that the EU27

agreed that they will now start the work of preparing their vision of

what that future partnership will be so that when we come to open

formally those trade negotiations, both sides have got that agenda and

clearly know what those negotiations will cover. Given the wish of

business to deal with uncertainties which is understandable, would the

Prime Minister agree that the best course for a business trading with

Europe would be to prepare for a smooth transition to WTO trade terms

which this Government can and will guarantee unilaterally but to expect

the Prime Minister to have good luck in bringing back something better.

Well, I think it's absolutely right that it is important that business

prepares for a smooth and orderly move to the future relationship that

we have, that's why I have proposed this implementation period and I

believe that's in the interests of businesses, not just in the United

Kingdom but also in the European Union, but as my right honourable

friend says, we are working to get the good deal which I think also

will be not just in our interests but in the interests of the EU27 as

well. Further to her answer to the member for Chingford, the Brexit

Secretary said last week that the transition phase will be triggered

only once we have completed the deal itself. I understand her

spokesperson said today the implementation period is a bridge to

where you are heading and you need to know where you are heading. Could

she clarify, is she saying today that if we haven't got a long-term

trade deal agreed by this time next year, then there won't be any

transition deal at all and Britain will end up on WTO terms by March of

2019? Well, can I say to the right honourable lady as I just responded

to my right honourable friend the member for Chingford, an

implementation period is about a period which is adjusting to the

future relationship, that's the basis on which I put it forward to

the European Union and the basis on which we will be negotiating an

agreement on it. In relation to any implementation period, will my right

honourable friend accept that it is a potential bear trap if there is a

direct involvement of the European Court whose case law asserts

supremacy over our parliament and over our courts and includes a

commitment to the charter of fundamental rights and political

integration? As my honourable friend knows I have been very clear that

one of the intentions of people voting to leave the - for the UK to

leave the European Union was to ensure in the future the

jurisdiction of the court of justice no longer was covered - covered the

United Kingdom. When it comes to the implementation period we will of

course have to negotiate the basis of that implementation period, if we

are going to ensure that we have the greatest possible certainty for

business during that period, then it will be necessary, I think, for to

us see as little change during that period as is commencerate with that

certainty for business. Indeed one of the purposes of the EU withdrawal

bill is to bring the EU law into UK law to give that certainty to

businesses and individuals here. Until recently, the British

Government was leading the negotiations in Europe to create a

digital single market benefitting creative industries. Can she explain

how she expects to be taken seriously in the words of her

statement to - completion of the single market by 2018, when she's in

the process of trying to leave it? Can I say to the right honourable

friend the UK continues to lead in the debate on the creation of the

digital single market. We believe this is important for the EU27 and

important for the UK in or out of the European Union. So we will

continue to negotiate during the period that - encourage the digital

single market during the period we are members of the EU but I believe

it's important once we leave the EU that digital single market has

indeed been created and we will forge a new relationship and new

partnership with it. Can I commend the Prime Minister's statement and

the progress that she has made in negotiations. As we have heard,

representatives of British businesses, businesses of all sizes,

from all sectors, have written today to the Government warning of the

consequences of no deal and relying on World Trade Organisation rules.

They said the Government should give certainty to business by immediately

ruling this option out under any circumstances. Will the Prime

Minister agree to listen to British businesses and would she even go so

far today as finally to rule out no deal? Well, can I say to my right

honourable friend that we have of course been engaging with business,

we have been listening to business. I was very clear that the

implementation period was something that business was very keen on

having and ensuring that they had that smooth and orderly process of

withdrawal. But we are in a negotiation with the EU27. I think

it is important to remember as part of that negotiation that if we want

to get a good deal for the United Kingdom I think the best wait to get

a bad deal for the UK is to say we will accept anything that they give

us regardless. We have to be clear that what we are working for is a

good deal. But I am optimistic about that because we have made some

progress and I believe that the good deal that we are seeking is in the

interests of both sides. Isn't it the case the business community will

be shocked to hear the Prime Minister's words today which seem to

suggest that there will be no clarity on transition or

implementation until we get a final deal in some number of months or

possibly longer ahead? It's the cliff-edge that the business

community want to know will not be there in March 2019. Will she not

give a commitment now to treat this - attaining a transitional

arrangement separately, from trying to get this final deal? I set out in

my Florence speech the concept of the implementation period and of

course we have to discuss that with the EU27. But I am confident that we

are going to get a good deal precisely because getting a good

deal is not just in our interests, it's in the interests of the EU27 of

the remaining European Union as well. That's what we are working for

and that's what our effort is going into. A Lincolnshire knight, Sir

Edward League. May I commend the Prime Minister's approach based on

the Florence speech, which I think is entirely sensible, pragmatic and

moderate. But may I also encourage her, given that we are being

entirely open about our negotiating tactics, namely, that no European

nation should be worse off or any EEU citizen, may I encourage her to

be more transparent and open with parliament on the figures. I know

the position of Whitehall is that parliament is a nuisance, but what

else was Brexit about, ex-September reviving parliamentary democracy? We

still have no idea what we have offered, what they're demanding, I

think we could do with more information because there will be a

vote on this in this House and that will and vote that counts. May I say

to my honourable friend that of course we have said that there will

and vote on the deal in this House and we expect that to and vote that

will take place before the European Parliament votes on the deal in this

House. I have also said and I said this in my Lancaster House speech in

January that when we are able to make information available we will

make that information available. But as my honourable friend and others

may recall, I also said that we weren't going to give a running

commentary on the details of the negotiations and I think that's

important. Because we must not put this country in a position where we

have set out publicly everything that we are looking for in these

negotiations because of course that just hands the cards to the other

side. This is a negotiation. Both sides will have to move on it. Given

the report from the business groups today calling for transition and

giving the lust for the cliff-edge being displayed by some on her back

benches, perhaps she could introduce some facts, could she list any major

economies in the world which trade with the EU on the basis of WTO

rules alone with no sectoral or other agreements in place? Can I say

to the right honourable friend the premise of his question is false in

that he seems to be suggesting that the purpose of the Government's

negotiations are to somehow engineer a no deal scenario. They are not. We

are working to a deal, we are working to a good deep and special

partnership for the future relationship for this country with

the European Union to cover both trade and security relationships.

Can I follow that up because the tenure of the Prime Minister's

negotiations last week in her statement to the House today is very

much as she said, to seek a creative and pragmatic approach to a new

partnership. Partnership is the key word, is it not, because no

partnership is possible without dialogue, within this House, with

the European neighbours and fellow member states, and in the Cabinet.

Can the Prime Minister assure us those talks will continue and that

she will not listen to those unfortunately on these times benches

who want talks to stop and us to go on to WTO rules?

I can assure my right honourable friend that the negotiations are

continuing as I have said, we want to ensure that we have work to, it's

what we are doing, working to get ago good deal. The purpose of my

Florence speech was to get out -- set out that vision for that special

partnership in the future and it's that partnership the Government is

working towards. There's been much talk today of the

time limited implementation period which the Prime Minister referred to

in her Florence speech. Others have referred to it as a transitional

deal. Can she tell us whether there has been any discussion with the

EU27 as to what the legal basis of such a transition prime minister

period would be, would it be Article 50 or would it be something else?

I can say that the EU themselves actually raised a similar concept to

the invitation appeared in April guidelines on the basis of the

Article 50 process. On the matter of North Korea, the defence select

committee recently took evidence from a group of academics who argued

that North Korea may already have the ability to reach the UK with a

thermonuclear weapon. If that be true, does the Prime Minister agreed

it would be the utmost folly to abandon our independent nuclear

deterrent? I can absolutely agree with my honourable friend that it

would be folly to abandon our independent nuclear deterrent and

there are many reasons why it is important to maintain our

independent nuclear deterrent and this Parliament has of course voted

to upgrade that independent nuclear deterrent and it is important

because it is also part of the collective defence of Europe that we

provide is a member of Nato. The government position of the Brexit

negotiations is simply absurd. The Prime Minister reputable out no

deal, the Brexit secretary was threatening no deal last week and

the Home Secretary was saying it was unthinkable. My question is, what it

is going to cost the British taxpayer? The Home Secretary said

that 50 million was already being spent this year on contingency

planning in her department. How much is being spent across government and

how many nurses, doctors or police could that pay for? I can tell the

honourable gentleman that in fact I have already said at this dispatch

box that the Treasury has set aside for this year ?250 million to be

spent across departments in preparing contingencies for every

eventuality. May I congratulate the Prime Minister on the great progress

and change in tone the negotiations... May I particularly

thank her for the progress that has been made on the citizens rights

issue and may I ask her to give us more detail of the areas where

agreement has been cemented? I can say to my honourable friend that

there are a number of areas where agreement has been reached,

particularly in relation to issues such as payments on pensions and

health care arrangements for citizens, both EU citizens here and

UK citizens in the EU and there are a small number of areas where we are

yet to reach agreement but as I said I think it is clear from both sides,

from the UK and also from Michel Barnier and the EU, that we can see

the shape of that deal and we are within touching distance of getting

there. Thank you, Mr Speaker, I welcome the statement by the Prime

Minister and look forward to progress being made especially after

December when we moved to phase two but has the Prime Minister taken the

opportunity to remind the Republic of Ireland Taoiseach macro that is

about time he started to pull his in the interest of the Republic of

Ireland rather than attempting to throw his weight around on the issue

of the border? All that is doing is damaging potentially his economy

more than the economy of Northern Ireland. And could the Prime

Minister also make an impression on the front bench of the Labour Party,

when they visit Northern Ireland and threaten that the peace process is

an exchange for Brexit, they are playing with fire and it ought not

to encourage that beast. I think it is very important that all sides on

this issue are very clear that the Belfast agreement must be insured to

be put into place and recognised and respected in its entirety. It is

also important and we want to ensure that the peace programmes that have

been possible through our membership of the EU can continue in the future

and of course when it comes to the board and resolving the issue, it

will be for us to work with the Republic of Ireland government and

the EU more generally to find the solution we all want to see which is

no physical infrastructure of the border and no return to the borders

of the past. Can I reassure my right honourable friend that anyone who is

suggesting that she is weak is seriously underestimating her, but

seriously underestimating this party, which supports her, and

underestimating the importance of the referendum mandate and the fact

that she personally obtained more conservative votes than any other

conservative leader for 30 years. Will she sticks to her guns and

follow through and have confidence that unfortunately the only people

undermining her from this site are people who are threatening to go

into the lobbies with the Labour Party? Can I thank my honourable

friend for the confidence he has shown in me and can I also say to

him that I am sure all members of our party want to ensure that we get

the best possible deal for the UK and that is what the government is

working to and I look forward to everybody on these benches

supporting us. Did the EU Council discuss Russia and in this context

has the UK Government or its agencies been asked for help or

information by the American congressional team or the US special

Counsel Robert Mueller investigating alleged Russian subversion of the US

presidential election? I can say to the right honourable gentleman that

on this occasion Russia was not one of the subject on the agenda of the

EU Council. We did discuss a number of foreign policy issues, North

Korea, Turkey, DPRK were all on the agenda but Russia was not. If our EU

friends were to demand a sum of, say, ?1 trillion rather than 100

billion, the position of the opposition would have to be to

accept that because they would not walk away under any circumstances.

Given that we would walk away under unacceptable circumstances of that

sort, can the Prime Minister reassure us that all necessary

preparations will be made so that we can walk away without a deal if we

need to, which will of course maximise the prospect of getting a

good deal and not having to walk away? Can I say to my honourable

friend that indeed we are ensuring that government is preparing for all

contingencies, that is the sensible and pragmatic approach for any

government to take. We are of course working for a deal as I have set out

previously but can I also thank my honourable friend for graphically

illustrating the position taken by the Labour Party, which is that they

would simply pay any price for a whatever? The Prime Minister says

she wants a deep and special partnership with the EU but some of

her colleagues want a total and complete break. Isn't the truth that

her failure to resolve this fundamental issue is what has

stalled the negotiations and put the future of our country at risk? The

honourable lady obviously failed to recognise the progress that was made

at the EU Council and the decision that was taken that the EU 27 will

now be preparing for their position in the negotiations on the future

partnership and an implementation period in the lead up to that

partnership. They recognised that we had set out our vision for what the

future partnership would look like and it is now for them to look at

what they believe that partnership should be in the future and that is

what they are doing. Last year the European Union had a surplus of

?71.8 billion and a report said Lars Vidot if we moved to tariffs the

German auto industry alone would lose 29,000 jobs that was any

realisation at all in the discussions of the impact of not

discussing free-trade arrangements because it is massively in the

interests of our partners to maintain reciprocal free-trade and

do they understand they would lose far more if we moved to WTO if they

would. It is clear across the EU that it is recognised that we need

to look at what a trade relationship might be in the future because as he

has said and others, this is not just about the UK future position

but also about jobs and the economy in the EU 27 as well and I think

there is a recognition, and they are now looking at what they think that

partnership could be for the future, and I'm sure my right honourable

friend is aware there are a number of organisations on the continent

now starting to talk about the importance of this relationship for

their businesses in the future. Could I ask the Prime Minister a

question that the Brexit secretary was unable to answer last week?

Given that the government now envisages a two-year transition

period with the existing structures of rules and regulations applying,

could she clarified if a pharmaceutical company wanting an

authorisation to market a new cancer drug in the UK during transition

would do so via the European medicines agency or a new system as

yet undefined? Can I say to the honourable lady that the intention

of the implementation period is, as far as possible, to ensure there is

not a cliff edge and people can operate on the same basis as they do

at the moment, as they put in place the necessary changes leading up to

the future partnership. Of course that implementation period, which is

now going to be looked at by the EU 27, is something that will be part

of future negotiations. Does my right honourable friend agree with

the select committee on exiting the EU that it would be in the best

interests of both sides if we could conduct negotiations on the divorce

settlement in parallel with those of our new relationship and does she

agreed further that any flexibility on the size of our exit payment must

be linked to flexibility in other areas to be negotiated? I can take

to my right honourable friend that the government and I have been very

clear that the whole question of that financial settlement cannot be

finally settled until we know what the future partnership will be. It

is not that we will sign up to a bill and negotiate what the

partnership will be so it'll be the case that once those formal

negotiations on the future trade relationship have started and the

security relationship, there will be negotiations continuing that were

initially identified in phase one. Since the Brexit vote there has been

a 96% drop in EU nurses registering to work here. With a vacancy in the

NHS rate of 86000 and rising, how much bigger does that crisis have to

get before this government stops using these medics as bargaining

chips and do something to make sure there are nurses and doctors in our

A this winter? First of all I want to reiterate the point I make in my

statement and have made on a number of occasions, that we value the

could Bishoo EU citizens have made here in the UK and we want them to

stay -- Adeoti contributions. There are of course more nurses in the

later today than in 2010 and we are taken of the limit on the number of

nurses who can be in training and there are 52,000 nurses in training

and there were two applicants for every nurse training place here in

the UK. Does my right honourable friend agree that the progress

achieved at the Council meeting demonstrate there is a weight of

logic on both sides that lends itself to a deal being done but

would she reassure the house that in the weeks ahead every ounce of

effort will be marshalled across the government to achieve that end? I

absolutely agree with my right honourable friend that this is in

both our interests and I can reassure him that government as a

whole and collectively across every department is putting the effort

necessary into this in looking at what legislation we need to bring

forward but also at preparing for all eventualities once these

negotiations have finished but the whole government -- effort of

government is being put into this. The prime Minster has raised

expectations about the situation between Northern Ireland and the

rubber brick and that is welcome. -- and the republic. Is it conceivable

that it could be done without real negotiation between Dublin and

London and of course with Brussels as well and if it really possible we

can talk about no deal in that scenario? Can I say to the right

honourable gentleman that it is not that expeditions have been raised

this time round, that is the position we have taken and

consistently taken since Mike Lancaster House speech in relation

to not wanting to seek a return to the borders of the past between

Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. As I said earlier, of

course ensuring we get the solution to that will require us to work not

just with the EU Commission and with the 27 but to work hard with the

Republic of Ireland government as well. The Prime Minister is

absolutely right not to roll out a no deal scenario, to do otherwise

would be utterly naive but when it comes to the implementation period,

what assurances can she did that it will be strictly time limited? I

think the key issue about this is that it is about the period of time

that is necessary to make the practical changes necessary to move

to the future partnership and of course by definition those changes

will have a time limit to them. I have said this would be around two

years on the current implications of what we are looking at in terms of

those practicalities, but it is absolutely essential that it is time

limited because we will have left the EU and we will be moving to win

up -- to a new partnership and people here want to ensure we get to

that partnership and to the new arrangement outside the EU.

You look surprised! If the honourable lady doesn't wish to

contribute she's not obliged to. Let's hear the honourable lady. What

we have heard is the possibility of a no deal Brexit. What about the

threat that would pose through leaving the single aviation market

to our entire aviation industry in this country? I would say that of

course we are aware of the necessity of looking very closely at

negotiating those deals in relation to aviation because we still want

people to be able to fly as they're able to do so today. But once again

she's folking on a no deal when the efforts of Government are put into

getting a good deal. -- she's focussing. A true parliamentarian is

never lost for words! Whilst we all hope our European partners start to

negotiate on trade is there not a silver lining if they are

unreasonable in that we will have to move towards WTO rules and suddenly

the French and Germans will realise what a disaster it is for their

economies, not us, they'll negotiate a good deal, not write out the blank

cheque the members opposite want to give them. My honourable friend is

right that I think it is in the interests of both sides, it's in the

interests of businesses here in the UK but also businesses in the EU27

countries that we get that deal on trade and that's why we are working

so hard for it. When are we going to have the committee stage of the EU

withdrawal bill? I only ask because if there is any, I don't know,

hiatus or gap in the legislative programme, there is another bill

that's had second reading unanimously and it was an incident

where the Conservatives didn't vote, that's because they were in the

support of the bill, it's the assault on emergency workers bill,

couldn't we bring that into committee and have it through the

processes by Christmas so we can stand by our emergency workers? I

note the bid the honourable friend has put in relation to this

particular matters. He tempts me to make a business statement here that

I will not do, that is matter for the leader of the House but I am

pleased the Government is able to support the bill that he has brought

forward. I think this is important. We look forward to seeing it on the

statute book. Will she show caution in respect of this suggestion that

she reach out and enlist the support of members opposite, particularly

those who have shown their desire to thwart Brexit at every turn by

voting against the principle of the withdrawal bill. Well, with his many

years of wisdom, my right honourable friend is right to urge caution on

me in relation to this matter and he is absolutely right, the Labour

Party has tried to thwart the measure which would enable us to put

into place the decision taken by the British people. As we have heard

this afternoon, there are many members opposite who claim that

leaving with no deal and trading on WTO terms will be relatively

straightforward. But if we are in a no deal scenario, we will still need

the EU in its capacity as a member of the WTO to at least agree to the

new terms of our independent membership of it. Can she therefore

guarantee if there is no deal with the EU, that she will at least get

their agreement to the new terms of our independent membership of the

WTO? Can I say to the honourable gentleman that actually the whole

question of our membership of the WTO and the independent role that we

will take in future once we are outside the European Union is one on

which the department for international trade is already

working and already working with partners such as the European Union

to look ahead to the position we are going to take. The reason why this

country has been so successful in the past and will be in the future

is because of our belief in the rule of law. So therefore, can I urge the

Prime Minister to pay the European Union what is legally due to them

when we leave the EU, not a penny less but not a penny more either. If

the Government has got spare tens of billions of pounds in its coffers, I

am not sure it has, that money should be used to pay for things

like social care and for pay rises for public sector workers, not to go

into the bottomless pit of the EU and into Jean-Claude Juncker's wine

cellar which I am sure is rapidly diminishing as we speak. We can't

look public sector workers nr the eye if we give billions of pounds to

the EU that is not needed to give to them legally, and hold back their

pay at the same time. Can I assure my honourable friend that as I said

in the Florence speech and reiterated today, we are clear that

we will honour our commitments but we are going through those

commitments line by line. Of course part of the discussion about those

commitments is precisely about the legal nature of those commitments

because we are a law abiding nation and we want to ensure we stand by

commitments that we have made but we are not going to sign up to anything

like the Labour Party. Tomorrow a number of EU nationals will converge

on parliament to speak to their Members of Parliament about a lot of

feelings of distress and anxiety. What's the Prime Minister's message

to those individuals? My message to them is that we value the

contribution they have made here in the United Kingdom. We want them to

stay. That's what we are working for. We have made significant

progress in relation to citizens' rights. I have made a number of

commitments in an article that I wrote last week to EU citizens

living here in the United Kingdom and I stand by those commitments. We

want them to stay. Does my right honourable friend agree with me that

by some happy accident we have actually ended up in a rather more

constructive space for a successful deal because we are going to have

two months of private diplomacy around the future deep and

comprehensive trade agreement we will have with our EU partners but

even so it is necessary for us to prepare for no deal, these talks may

fail and even the fact that it's Gina Miller agrees with me we should

begin to surface the Government's own preparations around the

contingency plans, the - I think does she agree these should be

surfaces so it's not just the Government but business and people

who can begin to make necessary contingency plans? Well, I say to my

honourable friend that we are working to get the deal that we

believe will be in the interests of the UK but also of the European

Union for the future. That is where our focus is going. Of course as I

have said, we are working across Government to make contingency

arrangements for every eventuality but I have also said when we go

through, as we are in negotiations, we are not going to give a running

commentary on every detail of those negotiations but we continue to work

for what I believe is in the best interests, which is to get that good

deal for us and for the European Union. Last week I took part in a -

exiting the EU Brexit Select Committee trip to Dover, which

processes 10,000 heavy goods vehicles per day. There we were told

that if you add an extra two minutes to the customs proceedings, you get

an additional 17 miles of tailback going from Dover to Ashford. With we

were also told in that context a no deal scenario would be a total

catastrophe. Can the Prime Minister please explain what measures are

being put in place to avoid total gridlock in Dover in the event of a

no deal scenario? The honourable gentleman is Wittering away in

appreciation of the point articulated by his honourable friend

from whose constituency he is himself far distant. It's all

inexplicable. Prime Minister. I think the honourable friend was

making a point that actually this would be an issue that would affect

others on the other side of the channel as well as the United

Kingdom. But the point is that we have published proposals, the future

customs relationship will be part of the negotiations as we look to the

future trade relationship that we will have. But we publish proposals

in the summer as to a number of options that could be adopted to

ensure that we do see as conflictsless as possible trade

across the border -- frictionless. So the problem does not arise. I am

glad the Prime Minister could explain, I couldn't tell, I am

grateful for a bit of information! This morning I met with a gentleman

who was singing the praises of the Prime Minister, he was saying that

she's determined, yet patient and gets things done. I think the whole

House would agree with that. But he went on to say he reads the

newspapers and very concerned about progress not being made and things

are terrible. Would the Prime Minister agree with what the

newspapers are saying or - one other thing, I did ask which newspaper he

read, and it was the Evening Standard. Well, can I say to my

honourable friend we have a free press in this country and that's an

important underpinning of our democracy. What I know is what the

Government is doing and what we are doing to ensure that we get that

good deal for the future. I heard you from your seat, Mr Campbell.

Let's hear you on your feet if you are still interested. Here's me

thinking you weren't going to call me. Seeing we are not in the euro,

can she guarantee that none of the money that - will be used to prop up

The Euro. Good question. Will that money be used?

LAUGHTER Like the Speaker said. We are not in

the euro. Our money shouldn't be used for it. The only problem the

Prime Minister's got is some of the Cabinet ministers walking up the

gangway. Can I say to the honourable gentleman that of course this party

has a track record of ensuring that we don't have to contribute to

propping up the euro because that is exactly what my - and the previous

Prime Minister negotiated when he was in negotiations with the

European Union in the past. I welcome the statement made by the

Prime Minister and particularly the progress that she's reported to the

House. I do not believe that EU citizens living in the UK should

have the European Court of justice as the final arbitter for any

disputes when we leave the EU. However, to the extent that this

matter remains on the agenda for Brussels, can the Prime Minister

give an assurance to the House that Britain is demanding that British

citizens living in EU countries will be able to have recourse to our

Supreme Court and not the ECJ? Well, the point that my honourable friend

makes actually I think shows up in a real way this issue of which court

should have supremacy over these issues. What I have said in relation

to citizens' rights and this is one of the issues that remains on the

table, we will give the certainty to EU citizens here in the United

Kingdom by ensuring that that agreement is part of the withdrawal

agreement is it in UK law, I believe that will give them certainty and

they can then take that as cases to the courts here in the United

Kingdom. Of course as happens in any case and in relation to other

courts, not just the ECJ, courts near the UK do look at judgments

that have been made by other courts and matters that are relevant to

them. But the important thing is that it will be through our courts

that EU citizens will be able to take their cases. The Prime Minister

used her new mantra of a deep and special partnership three times.

Even though the lack of progress, the business uncertainty and the

splits in her Government mean that the reality is that this deep and

special is actually the new strong and stable. An empty slogan from an

empty vessel caretaker Prime Minister. Gosh, it really is a day

of name calling. I can't imagine it's the sort of behaviour I would

have ever indulged in myself. The Prime Minister. Can I just say to

the honourable gentleman what we saw happening at the European Council

was the EU27 moving towards their own discussions about what that deep

and special partnership will be in the future. There are some who think

nationalisation is a Goodway forward. But there are also some

people who think we should stay in the single market. Could my right

honourable friend confirm that due to state aid rules you can not

nationalise if you are in the single market. I think my honourable friend

is absolutely right. It is yet again one of the confusions on the Labour

Party that shows they really don't know where they're going. Following

on from the question of the honourable member from Avon, the

members of the Select Committee were also told in Dover by a

representative of the port of Calais they would not build a lorry park in

Calais, they could not operate without it, they would not build a

lorry park because of the migrant issues and the port of Calais would

have to close under the circumstances. Has the Prime

Minister considered that problem? What we have done and will continue

to do when we are on to the negotiations in relation to trade is

talk about the future customs relationship we want to have with

the EU. We have set out proposals for that and we look forward to

discussing them with the EU. I was very pleased that the Prime Minister

confirm that the UK is fully playing its part over migration and to hear

that the Royal Navy have intercepted 172 smuggling boats and saved over

12,000 lives since operation Sophia began but could she confirm that at

the summit the EU report that it has a looming deficit, a pay gap of ?225

million in the money that goes towards migration projects in North

Africa? I understand that Germany and Sweden offered more money

towards these projects. Could she confirm that and say if any other EU

countries were forthcoming in offering more money to help save

lives? My right honourable friend is referring to the trust fund that has

been established in relation to migration matters in Africa that is

something to which the UK has contributed alongside others and she

is right that the commission reported there was that deficit.

From the UK point of view we are putting extra money into activities

in Africa in relation to supporting be put in countries of origin and

transit and what we're doing is working alongside that trust fund

and the work we're doing is to ?75 million.

I am sure the Prime Minister's confidence is well-placed that the

EU would agree to as being an independent member of the WTO but in

that situation we would also need the agreement of every member

including Russia. What price does she think they would extract? Can I

say to the honourable lady that of course we are a member of the WTO at

the moment but obviously we have that link in relation to the EU and

in future we will want to be an independent member. We're working

across the WTO to ensure we are able to put in place the necessary

arrangements for that to happen. Could I thank the Prime Minister for

the huge amount of work she is putting into these negotiations and

say that I am sure she has the support of the whole house as she

does so? Could I also ask her whether she intends to ensure as she

mentioned in a statement that free flow of data is an integral part of

the future relationship between the UK and the EU which we will get? I

am very happy to give my honourable friend that reassurance. As I said

at the council, that free flow of data is important for us in relation

to the operations and particularly in building this digital single

market. But another point made that I and others made it that we should

not just look at the digital market about being about the EU, it is a

global issue and we have to make sure that work is being done on a

global basis on this. The Prime Minister has talked a great deal

about an implementation deal. We all know we will be withdrawing in March

2019, there is no disagreement on that, the free trade deal may take

some time to negotiate. Does the Minister accept that this is what

business needs to hear, that a transition deal may help to deal

with the finer detail and conclusion of a trade negotiation and therefore

will not be some of implementation but a proper transition? Both sides

on this recognised that the timetable set out in the Lisbon

Treaty and it refers to the future relationship and the withdrawal

agreement can only be considered and agreed in respect of taking account

of the future relationship. It is important we negotiate that future

relationship so we have both the withdrawal agreement and the future

partnership and the intimidation period is a practical period.

Honourable lady looked as if she does not believe that is possible

but the point is that we start these negotiations on a completely

different bases from any other third countries. We start on the basis we

are already trading with the other member states of the EU, on the

basis of rules and regulations and when we leave we will have taken

those regulations, EU law. I would like to ask my right

honourable friend whether, given the disappointment we seed consistently

from the bureaucracy over Europe, in her discussions with the leadership

of Europe and the politicians and individual member states, is the

position more nuanced and is there hope for optimism? I can say to my

honourable friend that I think there is hope for optimism. Obviously we

are negotiating that future partnership and one of the

interesting issue is that the EU 27 are themselves starting to think

about their future and the future nature of the relationship they

would have and the arrangements they would have. But what we're doing is

working to negotiate that deal and in one sense as I have just

indicated in response to the honourable member for Pedersen and

Stockbridge, we know that we start on the same basis as negotiations,

on the same basis as trading which will make it easier for us and it

does now to be as bureaucratic as it might be in other circumstances. As

the prestigious organisation for economic cooperation and development

reported last week, that the British economy would be far stronger in the

future without Brexit, and as we have new horrors revealed about

Brexit on an almost weekly basis, is it not right that three years after

the referendum, when we are thinking of taking this step, we allow the

public to have a second opinion on it in the knowledge that second

thoughts are always superior to first thoughts? Can I say to the

honourable gentleman that I think this is about more than a decision

to leave the EU, it is about whether the public can trust their

politicians to put into place the decision they have taken. And I

suggest that any suggestion we in some sense say to the public, you

better have a second referendum because we think you got it wrong,

that is out of the question. We will be leaving the European Union. I

welcome my right honourable friend's update and the tone and manner with

which she is representing the UK in these negotiations. Whilst no deal

is obviously better than a bad deal, does she agree that according to

reports now that the German foreign ministry is preparing a draft trade

accord and the Swedish national board of trade is drawing up trade

plans, there are grounds for optimism that a mutual beneficial

trade agreement can be struck which honours the instruction the British

people made last year? I agree with my honourable friend that there are

grounds for optimism, that we will be able to move those detailed

negotiations on trade and get that good trade deal and that is

precisely the point, as she is illustrated, because it matters to

others in the EU and not just to us, it is in the interests of both sides

to have that trade deal. A third of the designated negotiating time is

already part and it is clear that the EU holds the best cards. Would

it not be wiser for the government to perform a tactical retreat and

base its position on permit state is within the customs union and single

market instead of accelerating towards an uncertain if the knee

cost jobs and squeeze living standards? The first of all, the

British people voted to leave the European Union and that is what we

will be doing and that means we will no longer be full members of the

customs union or single market but we should be optimistic about the

opportunities that will be opened to the UK at a sovereign nation not

just with a good trade deal with the EU but also negotiating deals around

the world. Does the primaries to believe there are still too many

refuseniks sitting on the benches opposite divided impossible to come

to terms with the result of the referendum and that by the antics

they are not just undermining the bargaining position of the

government but indeed of the verdict of their own constituents Rustenburg

and the image of some of them, crossing the Channel recently and

pain commented to the commission and holding a bowl of British taxpayers

money like some Oliver twist in reverse saying, please sir, can we

give you more, was not just absurd but a slight to the British

taxpayer? I agree with my right honourable friend that I'm afraid

all we hear from the benches opposite our speeches and questioned

and indeed votes that are intended to thwart the will of the British

people and what the British taxpayer wants is for this government to get

on with a job which is exactly what we're doing and what they do not

want it an opposition that says to the EU, tell us the bill and pay

whatever it is. I thought that might be the timing, when is the Prime

Minister going to face down the ideologues in her party on the back

benches and indeed in her Cabinet who, from the safety of their

stately homes and chateaux, their trust funds and inherited wealth,

clamour for a no deal that they know would do huge damage to the just

about managing, leave the UK weaker and leave our position in the world

much smaller? When will she stand up for Remain voters and indeed the

Leave voters who do not watch the economic catastrophe that the

Eurosceptic obsessives on her benches want to inflict upon us? I

will tell the right honourable gentleman who I'm standing up for,

and standing up for the British people who voted to leave the

European Union. Unlike the Liberal Democrat party who want to tell the

British people they got the answer wrong. We gave them the choice and

they voted and we will deliver it. Over the weekend TV broadcasters and

newspapers have repeatedly used a photograph where the German

Chancellor and French President are covering their mouths. Viewers too

much of the day will be familiar to this post are often used by managers

when they do want to the opposition to see their change of tactics. Does

my right honourable friend detect a change of tactics amongst our

European colleagues and does she think they have ruled out victory,

the defeat or are playing for a score draw? Can I say to my

honourable friend that indeed I do think and we saw this from the

comments I quoted earlier from other European leaders, that the speech I

gave in the Florence has given a change in momentum and has been a

spur to the negotiations and the progress made at the EU Council and

could not possibly comment on what Chancellor Merkel and President

Akron said when they were talking in that manner -- President Macron.

Today the Northwest business leadership team warned about the

consequences of Brexit for jobs in the region, in particular Portman

are factoring jobs. Is the Prime Minister withholding information

about the risks to Manufacturing from a bad Brexit or any Brexit? As

I have said, I see optimism in terms of the trade deal we can get with

the EU, and about trade deals we can negotiate around the rest of the

world but also optimism about what we can do in the UK through our

modern industrial strategy to ensure that this is a country that works

for everyone and we do see the jobs created in the north-west and other

parts of the country and we see those jobs in manufacturing and also

in the sectors that will be the future artificial intelligence and

driverless cars. I welcome the Prime Minister's positive approach and the

news we are within touching distance of a deal because that is in the

best interests of everyone but in preparing for all eventualities,

would the Prime Minister be prepared to reinstate the seasonal

agricultural workers scheme because businesses in my constituency are

keen to plan ahead for all eventualities? Of course I was Home

Secretary when the seasonal agricultural workers scheme stopped

and at that stage it was clear that it was felt it was not necessary to

reintroduce the scheme at least for a period of time but the migration

advisory committee has been asked by the Home Secretary to look at issues

across the UK economy as to where it is at the immigration needs in the

economy and I am sure that will include the sector my honourable

friend has spoken about and whether a scheme is necessary. Did she hear

the Foreign Secretary's attempt to be helpful after the EU Council this

money by quoting Shakespeare, including there's a tide in the

affairs of men which take of blood that lead fortune from Julius Caesar

which was uttered by Brutus who went on to stab his leader subsequently

and came to a sticky end himself? Is that not a perfect metaphor metaphor

for her predicament? I always welcomed the literary and classical

references on my right robber friend brings to bear in his speeches and

statements and he and I are both working to get the right deal for

the UK -- my right honourable friend.

I was listening to the Foreign Secretary and I was heartened by his

remark in relation to career and I think my right honourable friend

that matter thank her for her update on those discussions at the EU

Council but does she agree that as we leave the EU it is more important

than ever that we reassure our important friends and allies in that

region such as Japan and the Philippines that our support for

them remained undimmed and is stronger than ever?

I am very happy to give that reassurance. I spoke to Prime

Minister Abe this morning to congrate late him on his victory and

also to reinforce the fact that we as the United Kingdom want to build

and enhance our relationship with Japan. We will continue to work with

them and other international partners to ensure that we get the

right result in relation to stopping the illegal activity from the PRK.

We also want a strong relationship with Japan in the future. Can I ask

the Prime Minister in terms of European security, in a week where

Hillary Clinton reminded us how pleased the Russians are about

Brexit and instability across Europe, was there a discussion in

the Council about Russia's part in Europe and security of our nations

going forward? As I said in response to right honourable earlier Russia

was not a subject t has been a subject on the agenda previously. We

continue and he talks about disruption across Europe, of course

the Russians have indulged in disruptive activity, not just the

illegal annexation of Crimea, but also in a number of other countries

to interfere in democratic elections in those countries. This is a

subject I am sure the EU Council will return to. My right honourable

friend has outlined the progress that is being made in the

negotiations. This is particularly important in the 80% export sector

of this country and services. The service sector has no protection

under WTO rules. Can my right honourable friend outline what

assessment has been made about the impact on the service sector of no

deal? We are looking across obviously all parts of our economy

in relation to the work that we are doing for the future. She is right

to raise the issue of the services sector, it's a very important sector

for the United Kingdom, obviously. It's an issue that is one of the key

issues that we will be focussing on in relation to obviously the trade

negotiations for the future. We have always been very clear, it's not

just about goods but also about services and obviously we want to

ensure that we retain the value of that service sector here in the

United Kingdom but also the world leadership that we have in many

aspects of the services sector. The Brexit Secretary has been quite

right when he says that it is so useful to know when Barnier speaks

he does so on behalf of a unified 27 in terms of negotiations. If Barnier

wants to know the position of the UK Government, who should he speak to?

It's in the Florence speech. Can I thank my right honourable friend for

her statement and welcome warmly the progress she's outlined towards the

deal that both we and our European partners require. I also welcome the

statement about EU citizens. Can I say I note in her statement she says

there ash small number of issues that remain outstanding. Could she

say what progress might be made in front of the December council on

those matters because resolution of that would represent a real

Christmas present for many EU citizens in my constituency and

elsewhere. Yes, as I say, I think both sides see the possible options

for moving to that, indeed moving to that agreement and I would hope that

we can make rapid progress on that over the coming weeks to the

December Council. The best contribution to the negotiations the

Government can make is a deep and special relationship with fellow

members of her Cabinet. If we are within touching distance of an

agreement as she said several times, it is surprising that there are so

many different positions coming out of her Cabinet colleagues so close

to the recent summit. So can see get a grip of her Government because

that would be the most significant contribution to our negotiation

position. Can I say to the honourable gentleman, I use the

phrase in touching distance in relation to the citizens' rights

issue, where I have indicated there are a number of issues still on the

table. I think we can see where we can go to ensure that we get that

deal and that agreement. The Government is very clear on the

position we have taken into the negotiations, we have set it out, I

set it out in the Florence speech. That's setting that vision for the

future deep and special partnership and it's that vision that the

European Union is now responding to. I welcome words and conclusions

about the need to have a fair and effective - all companies across

Europe pay their share of taxes. Does the Prime Minister have a

chance to urge the EU to follow progress we have made on

multinational companies and commit to extending that to overseas owners

of UK properties? My honourable friend raises an interesting point.

Can I say to him that we have made clear to the European Union of

course the work that the UK has done on in in the past. There was a

particular discussion on this issue in relation to the digital market

and a recognition also in the European Union that as we have

always said and the efforts that we have put into this in the past, this

is an issue that has to be looked at in a global scale and not just

within the European Union. Surely the Prime Minister must recognise

the concerns of business leaders with regards to the lack of progress

on at least a transitional deal when they're having to make decisions

about investments and jobs in this country over the next 18 months to

two years so what message does the Prime Minister think it sends out to

the people who create jobs and wealth in this country when her

Cabinet is completely split on whether or not there should be a no

deal cliff-edge scenario? The Government is working to ensure that

we get the best possible deal for the United Kingdom. That's where our

efforts are being focussed and that's what we will continue to do.

I set out the implementation period in my Florence speech, as I

indicated earlier, in response to a question, this is an issue that was

alluded to by the European Council and the Commission in the April

guidelines that were set out. So this is a matter on which I believe

we can make progress because it is in both sides' interests. May I

thank the Prime Minister for her statement and the constructive

progress that's been made and in particular her reference in reply to

my honourable friend, the importance and significance of financial

services. Inisbry! I speak as a lonely West

Ham supporter in doing so, will she bear in mind the importance that our

Crown territory of Gibraltar makes to financial services, it strongly

complements the City of London. Will she make sure Gibraltar's interests

are firmly taken aboard both in relation to financial services,

professional services and the operation of a free flowing border

as we go forward in negotiations? Yes, I am happy to give that

assurance. We have been very clear we have been keeping the Gibraltar

Government in touch with the work that we have been doing and we

continue to work with them and we have assured them and will continue

to do so that we will take their interests into account at every

stage. Thank you. A week after the universal...

LAUGHTER Anything I said! Let's hear the

honourable gentleman. Thank you. A week after the universal credit

debate debacle the Prime Minister has the cheek to come to this

chamber and use a phrase she's determined to put people first. Now

16 months down the line and yet no agreement on settled status for EU

nationals. That's her number one priority, this does not bode well

for the rest of negotiations. However, if we are in touching

distance of an agreement for settled status, what plans does she have in

process to be able to process up to three million applications? This is

a matter that the Home Office is putting necessary arrangement noose

place. Can I say to the honourable gentleman that we have set out very

clearly what we believe the arrangements for the future in

relation to settled status for EU citizens here in the United Kingdom

must be but in putting people first we must not just put EU citizens in

the UK first, bewe must also put UK citizens in the rest of the EU first

and that's why it's necessary to ensure that their rights are also

being guaranteed. The Prime Minister will have seen the recent EEF survey

of customers - of companies future investment plans and would she agree

this underlines how important it is for business that we get to

discussing trade arrangements at the earliest opportunity. Well, I

absolutely agree with my honourable friend, that's why I set out in my

Florence speech what our future trade relationship could be like so

that has elicited a response from the European Union 27 and they're

now preparing for negotiations on that trade relationship. Can I just

say what fine fettle the Prime Minister appears to be in given

there were German media reports at the weekend suggesting she was the

opposite. Must have been lost in translation. Anyway, look, does she

share the concern of my constituents who work in the City of London at

the declaration of the CEO of Goldman Sachs that he is going to be

spending more time in Frankfurt after all of this? Similar musings

have come out of JP Morgan and Morgan Stanley. What is she doing to

stem the brain drain and corporate exodus that faces our great capital?

We make sure the City of London retains its place as the world's

leading financial centre, that's been reconfirmed recently. What I

would say to those who think that the City of London will be damaged

by us leaving the European Union, is that the very reasons why the City

is so important in an international financial sense are the very reasons

why it is important for the City to retain that financial services

provision for the rest of the European Union as well. Page seven

of the conclusions refers to combatting terrorism and online

crime. And readiness to support appropriate measures at EU level.

Germany is introducing legislation to have extremist material taken

down within 24 hours. Is that something the United Kingdom will be

doing and urging other European countries to do so as we are all in

it together to defeat this poisoned ideology? The taking down of

material is very important as my honourable friend has said. Through

the counterterrorism internet referral unit we have been taking

down significant amounts of material. What my right honourable

friend the Home Secretary has done is working with the tech industry,

with the internet service providers, they've established a global forum,

we want to ensure that this material is taken down, not within 24 hours,

but actually within two hours. One or two hours. That's what we are

working to with the industry. Did the Prime Minister have a chance

over dinner with Michel Barnier to discuss the fact that he is soon to

meet leaders of the core cities in the UK to discuss Brexit

negotiations, does she welcome the fact that he is willing to meet the

representatives of 19 million people and doesn't she think it's rather

rude of the Brexit Secretary not to be prepared to do so himself? I have

to say to the honourable lady that I am aware that Michel Barnier is

meeting a number of people here in the UK and elsewhere around Europe

to discuss these issues. But the Brexit Secretary himself has indeed

put in place arrangements for meeting the MEPtro mayors to ensure

interests of people represented are taken into account. -- metro mayors.

Businesses on Teesside will give a warm welcome to the announcement

that we are closer than tofr a deal which is obviously great news and

important we do so as quickly as possible. However, does she agree

with me and my constituents that Labour's position that no deal is

not an option represents not so much negotiation, as capitulation? I

absolutely agree with my honourable friend, it's important that it is

very clear when we go into these negotiation that is we want to get a

good deal, we want to get the best deal for both sides, actually if it

is necessary, as I said before, no deal is better than a bad deal.

The EU citizens I have spoken to since they received the Prime

Minister's e-mail a week or two ago have taken no reassurance whatsoever

from it. Will the Prime Minister not accept that when she appears to make

concessions to EU nationals what matters is not how loudly her own

bark benchers cheer but how resured those people are and at the moment

they're not reassured by her e-mail. Of course I recognise that what we

want to do is to ensure we get to an arrangement with the European Union

where we are able to guarantee the rights of the EU citizens living

here in the UK, I want them to stay. I value the contribution that they

have made. I recognise that they will want reassurance, that was

precisely why I indicated the various issues that I did in the

e-mail and the article that I wrote about their future here in the

United Kingdom. But of course we also want to ensure that the rights

of UK citizens living in the EU are guaranteed as well. I am sure that

the honourable gentleman as a member of parliament of the United Kingdom

would want to give reassurance to UK citizens living elsewhere in Europe.

I congratulate the Prime Minister on taking the talks on citizens' rights

so close to touching distance of a deal. The logic of an implementation

period, partly implies time to prepare for our future trading

relationships with Europe and elsewhere. Could my right honourable

friend confirm that during the implementation period we will be

able to negotiate both the cloning of existing EU free trade agreements

and any new arrangements with other countries so that as many as

possible become effective on day one after the end of the implementation

period? I thank my honourable friend for

raising an important point and it is our intention to assure that well --

when we reach that future partnership we can open those trade

arrangement with the other nations around the world. There are two sets

of document it would be helpful if the Prime Minister would release to

the house. While we look at the EU withdrawal bill. Would she be

willing to release the potential impact studies that show how Brexit

will impact across departments and the UK? And also the legal advice

relating to the powers that will be pursued why this house for the

devolved administrations, many of whom feel this house has no

responsibility to areas of those addict in those purview. Would she

release those documents? She talks about the whole issue of devolution

and the arrangement within the devolved administrations and we have

been very clear about the issue, we want to ensure that power is

currently within Brussels, when they are brought back to the UK, we have

that discussion and negotiation about those where we need to ensure

we have UK frameworks in place. I see that her fund them is suggesting

that those powers should be devolved immediately to the Northern Ireland

weather is an executive, to Scotland and Wales and that could lead to a

break-up of the UK internal market, the very market which is of most

importance to those devolved administrations. On the half of the

EU citizens in my constituency of Redditch who I know first hand have

welcomed the finalist's commitment and remarks, I'm delighted she has

made a very practical practical statement about the cost of a

settled side has been no greater than a British passport and this

will also be welcome and can she also consider the issue of the

document needed to apply for this status which could be very difficult

for someone who has migrated to this country and that would also give

reassurance. My honourable friend raises an important point and a

number of EU citizens are concerned about that process of applying for a

settled figures and how bureaucratic it will be and that is why the Home

Office is working to make that add light touch and streamlined as

possible so people can have the reassurance it will not be a

difficult process to enter into. Thank you, Mr Speaker. The Prime

Minister stated her intention to create a new partnership with the

European Union after Brexit built on shared fundamental values such as

democracy, the rule of law, free trade, rigorous and their

accommodation and fair trade standards but would she also agree

that the hard fought for workers' rights in the EU are also critical

to that shared fundamental value and we should uphold after Brexit? This

government not only wants to maintain workers' rights but enhance

them and I am very surprised that the honourable gentleman should ask

that question given that the Labour Party voted against the very bill,

the EU withdrawal bill, that would bring workers' rights and EU law

into UK law. One of the first things I learned at law school would that