Saying they want to respect the will of the referendum. But every time we come to a vote on the matter there is always a reason why they cannot quite bring themselves to go to the lobby and vote for the Withdrawal Agreement. We have had three occasions in which we could have voted for the with all agree Withdrawal Agreement. Every single time, the same mps trot out to say they support the result and when it comes to the vote they vote to block brexit. So whats different this time . Votes thatingful took place are a very different had a goal different kettle of fish. The cross party talks contain a number of extremely important compromises and concessions for the extension. And it is therefore attractive as this parliament has not had the opportunity to debate the Withdrawal Agreement. Its a different kettle of fish to what went before. Memories,with short the Withdrawal Agreement built was very different to the former Prime Ministers initial socalled blind brexit which was rejected three times by the house. Major did contain 10 concessions giving more clarity on the u. K. E. U. Relationship. Talks gave the detail that we need. These were the direct result of the hard work of the opposition and the government and negotiating team over the course of six weeks of serious talks. The concessions included a Customs Union compromise with a binding vote on arrangements. A workers rights bill which would guarantee that Employment Rights and the u. K. Would not lag behind those of the e. U. , a pledge that the u. K. Will see no change in the Environmental Protection levels after brexit. That there will be trade with the e. U. While ending free avement, and to allow for vote at the Committee Stage on whether the deal should be to affect in referendum. And assuring mps that they have the final say on the uks relationship in the future with the e. U. And the promise that Northern Ireland will stay aligned with the rest of the u. K. On regulation and customs, even if the backstop comes into force. Giving way. Ou for i also appreciate the spirit in which the honorable gentleman is approaching this debate and this amendment. Can you clarify for me that the changes that he is outlining, these 10 changes, would they involve changing anything in the Withdrawal Agreement . The Withdrawal Agreement remains intact because those are the separation issues. All of these issues are around the future relationship which the European Union has made clear they are open to amending. The future relationship is the political declaration. Wasreason the previous bill opposed was because there was so little detail in the future relationship and because we have said repeatedly that the government should reach out, rather than going to the wrong extreme in this debate, but reach out to labor benches so that we can finally the former Prime Minister agreed to do that and we have a cross party talks and its a travesty to has never had the debate. Im grateful to the honorable member. And as someone who feels very strongly that the polarization of this debate has been immensely damaging for our country, and who feels that there are not enough people finding ways of bringing our country back together again, does he share my view that this is a route to achieve a compromise, which has appeared to be lost at this place. And perhaps a way for someone like me who believes in a relationship something akin to , to find a way forward and to achieve the compromise that makes the obligation of the referendum outcome, but also recognizes that so many people wish to maintain a close relationship with e. U. I think the honorable member for adding his name to our amendment. And i agree with every word that he has just said. Lets not forget that the parliament that is captured by the extremist is a parliament that plays directly into the hands of the new dealers, because the legal default position is that with no alternative we leave without a deal. The failure to compromise plays directly into the hands of no deal, and they are the minority in this house. The tale has been wagging the dog for too long. Its time to stop. In the Committee Stage of this bill would provide opportunity for amendments like a Common Market 2. 0 arrangement. But that has to be debated in this house in the Committee Stage. Lets get it over the line at second reading. I will give way. I thi the honorable gentleman forgiving way. He put for a compromise which i appreciate. It is good to vote for things rather than just against things. He says he wants greater details , and we know that there was not cross Party Agreement on these measures. So my question would be even if we could afford thincompromise,t behind them . I think the honorable gentleman. I was not talking to the decision to not support the agreement which included the 10 concessions that weve negotiated and have done a great job in securing. Tragedy thatis a this house has never had an opportunity to debate or vote on the Withdrawal Agreement bill. That we couldpe be joined so that its time to vote for something instead of just against something. I will give way. Im grateful for the honorable gentleman giving way. I appreciate that he is recommending to the house that we pass amendment six and seven. One but nott calls six a seven but i understand is that i would be presenting an option that everyone iis hou can choose to adult to adopt in preference to know brexit at all, the the government can bring this forward, saying theres an option for us to pursue. But if the government were to itself negotiate a separate deal, theres nothing proposed that would prevent the government from putting forward that option. I think the honorable member. I can confirm that we are saying that it should reflect the outcome of the cross party talks. Clearly this is not about a vote being set in stone. And the current Prime Minister is welcome, and good luck to him to go to brussels to try to get a deal. Im sure that you will forgive me for some skepticism about the series intend to do that. But if hes clearly able to secure some changes which he ls that he can bring back with the reality is whatever he brings back will have to be based on that fivepage document as a basic Building Block for a deal. Because that deal will not be torn up by the European Union. Vote onouse never had a ie proposal, which i think would have supported if he had got that far. As the honorable gentleman agree with me that had the house realized then what form subsequent events would follow to get us here today, and whats going to happen to Public Opinion in the ever increasingly wild debate that followed, if that vote could be given with that foresight, it would have been carried by a large majority , and that deal would now be in place and would be able to have civilized and sensible debates about the longterm arrangements during the transition period. I do wish and im sure many members wish that the crystal balls had been handed out when we first came. Unfortunately that was not the case, and it goes back to what the honorable member was saying earlier. The parliaments and the debates have been captured by the extremists and we have to move on from that. We have to break the deadlock. We need a Sustainable Way of preventing no deal and leaving with a deal. Could my honorable friend, and i think its an interesting amendment that he and his colleagues have put forward, could he clarify what he expects to see from the opposition bench about the amendments . What responses there are from that . Friend,nk my honorable i recognize that we have not had a conversation on this topic. We had a right honorable member may clear in an interview that bor withdrew due to the inability of theresa may to deliver her own party. And weep prose that some of the Prime Ministers put forward she would not be up to get her own party. This i think confirms that outside if the Prime Minister could deliver her own party. Some of the goodwill was clearly there. Now all of the focus should be on finding a way to put that deal back on the table. It, vote on debate it, and use it as a vehicle for short sorting out the situation we find ourselves in. I appreciate their own marks, the remarks. But my worry is that doesnt his idea require guaranteed statements from the European Union . What would they be . How could we secure them . At the heart of this deal this amendment, is a document that is absolutely being signed off on by the e. U. Its there. Its ready to go. Its offtheshelf. To theconcessions relate political declarations of the future relationship. Is that the European Union would bite our arms off if we came forward and said here is the deal, here are the tweaks, but this is where we need to go. This is why we use the extension period for a focus so that its ready to go. Im sorry, that there are summit questions. Its interesting that with a sensible suggestion, that there is a genuine interest in finding consensus. In that spirit i ask a cheeky question, were one committed to 33rd the the 31st of october, is there any way we could get this through the house without relying on the extension . The seconds said in reading, we are ready to work every hour of every day, 24 7, to make this work. In 31st of january was named the extension document but if we could get it done before then and on the first of october, then indeed. To accept theave Withdrawal Agreement billed as it stands in its entirety. We can add amendments and the Committee State and improve it like any other legislation. Those who are campaigning for a second referendum can add a vote to it at the Committee Stage if thats the way they wish to go. I would look at trying to bring in more of a Common Market 2. 0 approach. Us atoptions are open to the Committee Stage but we have to get it over the line a second reading. Whatever angle you are coming from in this deeply divided and fragmented house, the Withdrawal Agreement is the only game in town to make progress. Our second point today calls on the government to publish a copy of the draft bill to implement the agreement between the United Kingdom and the European Union within five working days. This draft bill must include provisions reflecting the outcome of the interparty talks. We know that document exists, we need to be published so we can get it scrutiny. Mr. Deputy speaker . Mr. Deputy speaker . For any member who support the deal based brexit, or indeed a second referendum, we are supporting the amendments that we are putting forward this evening. Its the most sensible pragmatic approach and the way forward. Lets get this done. Lets rediscover the lost art of compromise. Lets move our country forward onto issues that matter to people. To say to the honorable gentleman, had he checked with his own front bench that they would support this amendment . I understand that our position at the present time would be to abstain on this amendment. But im not 100 sure of that. Im not 100 sure of that. I hope that colleagues having listened to the debate will look at this across the house. We have a real chance of getting this across the line. When there is a discussion of alignment with Northern Ireland, did it say the whole four nations of the United Kingdom would be a Single Market until such time that the europeans agreed to a transition period . That is correct. The commitment made in the clarifications on the Withdrawal Agreement makes clear that until such time as alternative arrangements are found, that is in place. The heart ofis at the Withdrawal Agreement, but if members really boil it down, how many in this house are opposed to the backstop . I believe it protects peace in Northern Ireland. The Withdrawal Agreement has a backstop at his heart, there is a maximum of 80 members of parliament who oppose this and this is the definition of the tail wagging the dog and it has to stop. Lets get back to the issues ont people really care about the doorstep, education, health, housing, cutting crime, do you remember when we used to focus on those issues and politics in politics . Council has been paralyzed by this house has been paralyzed by extremes and i hope that our colleagues will join us in that spirit. Nothing has been selected just yet, but pplcan be happy. The question raised in this series of amendments relates in issue of the the extent to which the united to duty andt down obligation and be subservient to the European Union. I find this deeply offensive for that reason alone. This whole parliamentary constitution arrangement we have is based on the fact that with general elections, we make decisions in general elections by the free will of the british people in secret ballot. Taintedse decisions are , and the majority or otherwise is arrived at to decide upon the composition of this house of commons, then its apartment based on secret ballots and not a free choice of the british people. That we areains heading for general election. And that will sort out a lot of the problems we are currently experiencing with this bill, and indeed in relation to the whole of satisfying the the britishen by people in the referendum and house on occasions with the referendum act itself, on multiple occasions. When every single conservative act,ted for the withdrawal which clearly stated that we and wehe European Union repeal on exit day, the 31st of october. That is categorically the law of the land. So the whole concept of our subverted bybeing bill,ill dish this its already in place and has been decided and i see no justification whatsoever for and theto reverse it votes themselves have already been cast over and over again in act, not of the referendum but also in the manifesto, and in the notification withdrawal and in the withdrawal act itself. So theres no justification that i can see for the majority in this house. Though it did skate through by 29 votes, we know where those came from. Theres no question about it. They came from former conservative members of parliament and some who are unfortunately either ownthey che in a position where they have been having the whip taken from them. I saw this happen myself on it dids occasions though not happen to me personally. If you live by the sword, you die by the sword. In the right honorable member nods his head because its true and thats how it goes. The reality that this particular provision even the fundamental point about this is the way in which it allows the e. U. To dictate to the United Kingdom and the Prime Minister any term they would like and leaves us no targeting position bargaining position. Thats why said they should not be called the European Union withdrawal bill, it should be called the subservience bill. It is subjugation, weve experienced this which is why i called on the previous Prime Minister to resign. On aprilcapitulation 11 and a flurry of points of order, and we had a statement that afternoon. And i said will she resign because she had capitulated . That makes this bill a mirror image of that. This is whats going on. In al effectively way its worse. Because this is an obligation, a duty on the Prime Minister, and enforceable legal duty by judicial review with it came to it. I really do think the members opposite ought to reflect on the full naturei really do of the se and subjugation and vassalage that they are putting the United Kingdom in. It is not a disgrace and flies it is an utter disgrace and it flies in the face of not only the referendum but also section one of the withdrawal act, which specifically states the european 1972 isies act of repealed on exit day,t described as the 31st of october. And the money, does the selfindulgence of the people who voted for this bear in mind the fact that every month that has gone by since april or the end of march when the should one come out, that it costs for 2 billion pounds a month 1. 2 billion pounds a month . Any time they get to this self legislation selfflagellation and desire to extend this for no particular purpose whatsoever, the reality is it cost the taxpayer. Those are the people we represent. The is a denial of democracy they expressed themselves in the referendum bill. Specificallyouse, gave it to them to decide. We did not say that we are giving this under the referendum asked to make a decision in relation to whether we stay or leave. But when it comes to it, if we do not like the outcome, we are going to turn circle on you and revert that decision in parliament. E should sue on statute we gave the right to the british people undeniably and deliberately to make that decision on their own account, and not ourselves. So this is an astonishing illustration of what im saying that this particular clause , clauses been selected three subclause two needs to be read out briefly. If the European Council decides to agree on an extension of period in article 53 of the E