Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Live Event/Special
Interview with David Morris, Conservative MP, on Brexit Chaos; British Prime Minister Theresa May Addresses Parliament. Aired 12-1p ET
Aired March 25, 2019 - 12:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[12:00:00]
THERESA MAY, BRITISH PRIME MINISTER: I believe it's important for this house rather than talking about and wanting to pass the decision back to the British people again, to actually say to the British people, we will abide by the instruction that you gave us in the referendum in 2016.
JOHN BERCOW, SPEAKER, BRITISH HOUSE OF COMMONS: (INAUDIBLE) Crawford (ph).
CRAWFORD, MP: The costs to the British people of the amount of money which will be payable under the deal that the prime minister has put forward is between 34 billion and 39 billion pounds.
What does the government estimate the cost to the United Kingdom of no deal?
MAY: Well, my right honorable friend asks an important question. We have published economic analysis, which shows the impact of no deal. Of course, as a government we have put -- over 4 billion pounds is being spent in preparations for leaving the European Union with or without a deal.
But as I say, there is economic analysis which shows the impact of no deal over the coming months. My own view is that, over time, we would be able to address the issues that arose but there would be an immediate impact to the economy.
BERCOW: Yvette Cooper (ph).
YVETTE COOPER (PH), MP: The prime minister has said that she's prepared to provide for indicative votes and also to engage constructively with the process. But she has also appeared to again be many times ruled out supporting a customs union.
So can I ask her, if a customs union is supported as part of some indicative votes, is she ruling out the government attempting to negotiate a customs union with the European Union?
MAY: The right honorable lady has asked me on a number of occasions about a customs union. I've made my view on a customs union -- JULIA CHATTERLEY, CNN ANCHOR: We have a press statement from the U.S. president and the Israeli prime minister at the White House. Let's listen in to that now.
DONALD TRUMP (R), PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: (INAUDIBLE).
It's a big moment. Very important moment. It's my honor to welcome prime minister Netanyahu to the White House. He's a very special man. He's done a great job. I want to begin by expressing our condolences to the prime minister and the people of Israel for the horrific Hamas rocket attack on Israeli homes this morning, which wounded seven civilians, at least, including numerous children.
Our prayers are with our friends in Israel as they carry out an incredible way of life in the face of great terror. The United States recognizes Israel's absolute right to defend itself. The despicable attack this morning demonstrates the significant security challenges that Israel faces every single day.
And today I'm taking historic action to promote Israel's ability to defend itself and really to have a powerful, very strong national security, which they're entitled to have. In a moment, I will sign a presidential proclamation recognizing Israel's sovereign right over the Golan Heights.
The state of Israel took control of the Golan Heights in 1967 to safeguard security from external threats. Today, aggressive action by Iran and terrorist groups in southern Syria, including Hezbollah, continue to make the Golan Heights a potential launching ground for attacks against Israel, very violent attacks.
Any possible future peace agreement must account for Israel's need to defend itself from Syria, Iran and other regional threats. We do not want to see another attack like the one suffered this morning north of Tel Aviv.
In our meeting today, the prime minister and I will discuss these dangers as well as several mutual priorities in the Middle East and beyond. We'll be discussing other subjects also, including trade. But we will mostly be discussing this defense and perhaps offense.
Under my administration, the unbreakable alliance between the United States and Israel has never been stronger. You read things, you hear things. It's never been stronger. Just remember that. People talk but it's only talk. Our relationship is powerful. At this moment, the American embassy stands proudly in Jerusalem. The capital of the --
[12:05:00]
TRUMP: -- Jewish people have established and they've wanted the embassy for many, many years, for many decades and, frankly, through many presidents and we got it done. Not only did we got it done, we got it built at a slight cost saving, like about $1 billion cost saving. And I want to thank Ambassador David Friedman for the job he's done
and Jason Greenblatt and Jared and everybody who worked so hard together. So I want to thank you all.
Thank you very much, Ambassador.
(INAUDIBLE)?
And you love Israel.
DAVID FRIEDMAN, U.S. AMBASSADOR TO ISRAEL: And America.
TRUMP: And America. I was waiting for him to say that.
We've defeated the caliphate in Syria. We have withdrawn from the horrible Iran nuclear deal and imposed the toughest-ever sanctions -- and these are by far the toughest ever on the Iranian regime. It's having a big effect. Iran is not the same country that it was when I took office.
The day I took office, we had threats all over the Middle East and beyond. Iran is a much different place right now than it was. As I said during my State of the Union address, we will not avert our eyes from the dictatorship that chants death to America, death to Israel and calls for genocide against the Jewish people.
We won't let them even consider that. We will confront the poison of anti-Semitism through both our words and maybe, even more importantly, our actions. In the last century, humanity witnessed the horrific consequences of anti-Semitism and a world without a Jewish homeland.
In the wake of those unthinkable horrors, the Jewish people built a mighty nation in the holy land, something very, very powerful, something very special and important.
Today Israel demonstrates that incredible possibilities when strong sovereign and independent nations chart their own destinies. There can be no better example of greatness than what Israel has done, starting from such a small speck of sand. Israel is an inspiration, a trusted ally and a cherished friend.
The United States will always stand by its side. I'd like to now invite prime minister Netanyahu to say a few words -- and Bibi and I have known each other for a long time. He's another one who truly, truly loves Israel. I think I can say he also loves the United States.
So before I sign the presidential proclamation recognizing Israel's sovereignty over the Golan Heights, I'd like to ask prime minister Netanyahu to say a few words. Thank you very much.
Thank you.
(APPLAUSE)
BENJAMIN NETANYAHU, PRIME MINISTER OF ISRAEL: Mr. President, my dear friend, Donald, you have shown consistently incredible support for Israel, for our right to self-defense.
When we exercised that self-defense you have never flinched, you have always been there, including today. And I thank you.
Yesterday a rocket was fired from Gaza deep inside Israel. It hit a home north of Tel Aviv and wounded seven, including two small children. And miraculously no one was hurt, no one was killed.
Israel will not tolerate this. I will not tolerate this. And as we speak, as I told you, Mr. President, just now, Israel is responding forcefully to this wanton aggression.
I have a simple message to Israel's enemies, we will do whatever we must do to defend our people and defend our states. After this meeting, I will return home ahead of schedule to lead the people of Israel and the soldiers of Israel.
But before I go, Mr. President, it was so kind of you to invite me to come can here and was so important for me to come here to the White House and to thank you. Mr. President, over the years Israel has been blessed to have many friends who sat in the Oval Office. But Israel has never had a better friend than you. You show this --
[12:10:00]
NETANYAHU: -- time and again. You showed this when you withdrew from the disastrous nuclear deal with Iran. I remember, in one of our first meetings, you said this is a horrible deal. I will leave it. You said it. You did it.
You showed it when you restored sanctions against a genocidal regime that seeks to destroy the one and only Jewish state. You said I will restore those sanctions. You said it and I did it.
You showed that when you recognized Jerusalem as Israel's capital and moved the American embassy there and gave us a tremendous ambassador. You said it, you did it. And you showed it once again today, Mr. President, with your official proclamation recognizing Israel's sovereignty over the Golan Heights.
Mr. President, ladies and gentlemen, this is truly a historic day. For two decades, from 1948 to 1967, Syria rained deadly fire from the Golan Heights on Israel citizens below. A generation of Israeli children lived in constant danger.
And then in two glorious days in June 1967, the brave soldiers of Israel scaled those daunting heights and liberated the Golan. This has profound meaning for all Israel and for me personally. One of those brave soldiers was my brother, who was wounded in battle three hours before the end of the war.
And a few years later, as an officer in a special unit, I led my soldiers to a covert mission into Syria. As we came back to the Golan, to Israel. We nearly froze to death in a blinding snowstorm.
Well, as you can see, I'm still here. But at that point in 1967, Israel seized the high ground, which has since proven invaluable to our defense because, in 1973, Syria launched a surprise attack against Israel and those same Golan Heights proved to be to enable us to absorb the initial attack.
It was a horrific attack. And successfully counterattack the invading Syrian forces within three weeks we were at the gates of Damascus. Outmanned, outgunned, our brave soldiers triumphed at one of the hardest fought tank battles in our history. But we would have won those two wars, we would have to wait nearly a half century until this moment here in this room to translate a military victory into a diplomatic victory.
And that is why, Mr. President, your decision to recognize Israel's sovereignty on the Golan Heights is so historic. Your recognition is a two-fold act of historic justice. Israel won the Golan Heights in a just war of self-defense. And the Jewish people's roots in the Golan go back thousands of years.
In the long sweep of Jewish history, there have been a handful of proclamations by non-Jewish leaders on behalf of our people and our land. Cyrus the Great, the great Persian king; Lord Balfour; President Harry S. Truman and President Donald J. Trump.
And you, Mr. President, Mr. President, you have done it not once but twice. With your bold proclamation on Jerusalem and with your bold proclamation today on the Golan. Your proclamation comes at a time when the Golan is more important than ever for our security, when Iran is trying to establish bases in Syria to strike at Israel.
From across the border, in Syria, Iran has launched drones into our airspace, missiles into our territory. Mr. President, just as Israel stood tall in 1967, just as it stood tall in 1973, Israel stands tall today. We hold the high ground and we shall never give it up.
Mr. President, we have a saying in Israel -- I'll say it in Hebrew; it says, (speaking Hebrew).
That means the people are with the Golan. But thanks to you we now know that there are now two people who stand with the Golan, the people of Israel and the people of America. So on behalf of all the people of Israel, thank you, President Trump, thank you for your leadership --
[12:15:00]
NETANYAHU: -- thank you for your friendship and thank you for all you have done to make the alliance between America and Israel stronger and greater than ever. Thank you, Mr. President.
TRUMP: Thank you very much.
This was a long time in the making. Should have taken place many decades ago.
(INAUDIBLE).
(APPLAUSE)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: (INAUDIBLE), after signing the proclamation, after recognizing Jerusalem, will your deal of the century include separation of Jerusalem?
Will you give Palestinians --
TRUMP: We're talking right now. We're talking about this. Thank you, everybody.
(CROSSTALK)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Do you want to see Prime Minister Netanyahu --
NETANYAHU: Mr. President --
(CROSSTALK)
NETANYAHU: Mr. President, I have to tell you that I brought you a case of the finest wines from the Golan. I understand you're not a great wine drinker.
But could I give it to your staff?
TRUMP: Yes.
(CROSSTALK)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Mr. President, do you want to see the prime minister --
(CROSSTALK)
CHATTERLEY: You have been watching a press conference live with the Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, and the U.S. president, as the United States formally recognizes Israel's control over the disputed territory, the Golan Heights, a historic moment, as the Israeli prime minister called it.
Let's get some context here. I'm joined by Abby Phillip from the White House, and Oren Liebermann joins us, too.
Oren, I'll come to you because I think this is an important moment to just describe how pivotal this is to Israel, not just in terms of what we've seen here from the United States but also the timing two weeks out from elections in Israel as well.
OREN LIEBERMANN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: You could hear the questions there in the background, questions that neither Netanyahu nor Donald Trump appeared to answer, asking, Mr. President, do you want to see Netanyahu win the election?
Because you're absolutely right; that's apparently what this is all about. There was no pressing need to recognize the Golan Heights as part of Israel, to break decades of U.S. international policy, considering the Golan Heights as occupied territory. The only pressing timing right now is Netanyahu in a tough reelection
campaign and this seems perfectly coincided to make sure to give Netanyahu a political victory, a diplomatic victory, a foreign policy victory, right before those elections and to do it as Netanyahu is in Washington so he can meet with Trump to have that official recognition.
That's apparently what this was all about. The world had essentially grown accustomed to the idea that the Golan Heights would remain in Israeli control, that Israel would administer that. Again, that just reinforces the idea that this was all about Trump and the Trump administration, trying to make sure and trying to help Netanyahu win the election, now two weeks from tomorrow.
CHATTERLEY: You certainly got a sense of their relationship there, referring to each other as Bibi and Donald. They've been friends for a long time.
Abby, come in here, too. As Oren was pointing out, they are breaking with huge precedent here, not only to have an Israeli prime minister in the White House, so close to an election, but obviously recognizing Israel's sovereignty over the Golan Heights.
ABBY PHILLIP, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: That's right. This is a meeting that clearly seems to be aimed at bolstering Netanyahu, at a pivotal moment for him. You heard President Trump really reiterating the friendship not just between the two but also the degree to which the relationship between the U.S. and Israel in President Trump's words is the strongest it's ever been.
This is about showing that this bond that they have, both as leaders and between the two countries, is one that Netanyahu is as much responsible for as Trump is as well.
And these meetings, I have to note, that we're now seeing right now, were initially not supposed to be open to the press. They decided at some point today they would open these up and create an opportunity for the cameras to be in the room for the signing of that proclamation and for this moment between these two men.
President Trump will not speak at the APAC political conference in Washington this week.
[12:20:00]
PHILLIP: But vice president Mike Pence did speak earlier this morning. It's worth noting we've been talking about the elections in Israel coming up. Even Donald Trump and vice president Mike Pence are making the relationship between the U.S. and Israel a key factor in the presidential election coming up in two years for President Trump.
Mike Pence was attacking Democrats at APAC this morning for boycotting that conference, for not standing with Israel as strongly as the Trump administration has. So there's mutual benefits for both sides, especially out of this visit this week with Benjamin Netanyahu.
CHATTERLEY: Of course.
Oren, finally here, what we heard from Benjamin Netanyahu, that he was cutting short this meeting, heading home in the face of a rocket launch earlier this morning in Israel from Gaza that landed near Tel Aviv. The Israeli military blaming Hamas. Hamas pushing back.
What do we know about this?
What impact will this have again just two weeks out from these elections?
LIEBERMANN: First, on the latest from Israel, the IDF has confirmed it has started striking Hamas targets in Gaza in response to that rocket. It was exceptional for a few reasons. First of all, its range. It's the furthest a rocket has been fired from Gaza into Israel since the end of the 2014 war. And the timing; it was fired at first light, right around 5:15 this morning, incredibly unusual. Most rockets fired from Gaza are e fired overnight and they have no clear reason. There doesn't appear to be a clear reason here.
And as you point out, Hamas has denied responsibility. No one has come out and said, yes, we have fired this rocket.
In terms of the effect on the election, that's a much more difficult question. If you remember a few months ago, Netanyahu's former defense minister resigned because he felt Netanyahu wasn't being strong enough and hard enough against Hamas.
On top of that there have been some rounds of escalation where it appeared to the Israeli public that it was Hamas that decided how and why the escalation began as well as how and why the escalation ended. That hurt Netanyahu politically.
But I would suggest that more important than how this plays out is how it is perceived and how it's spun by the politicians and who defines here the narrative. When it comes to that, there's no doubt that Netanyahu's rival politicians will attack him.
But in Israeli politics, there's no one better at controlling the narrative than Netanyahu. So it's difficult to say this is how it will affect the elections but we'll certainly wait to see how it is played by the politicians and how it affects the election polls this close to the election itself.
CHATTERLEY: Absolutely. So many critics of Netanyahu say too many broken promises to crush Hamas. We'll see. Abby Phillip and Oren Liebermann, thank you both so much for those updates.
We'll take a quick break. After this, we're back to Brexit. The Speaker of the House is about to announce the amendments, which could change the course of Brexit once again. Stay with us.
(MUSIC PLAYING)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(MUSIC PLAYING)
CHATTERLEY: Welcome back to CNN's special coverage from outside the Houses of Parliament, as the British prime minister battles to keep control of Brexit.
Theresa May told Parliament there's not enough support in the House of Commons to hold a third vote on her Brexit deal. Prime Minister May warns that Parliament taking control of the Brexit process would be an unwelcome precedent and she said she is --
[12:25:00]
CHATTERLEY: -- frustrated with what she calls the collective failure to take a decision to provide the E.U. She said a short time ago that all its preparations for an increasingly likely no-deal scenario on April 12th is now complete.
The prime minister speaking in Parliament in the last hour explained what Brexit's path forward now looks like because she does not have enough support for the third meaningful vote.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
MAY: Mr. Speaker, I continue to believe that the right path forward is for the United Kingdom to leave the E.U. as soon as possible with a deal now on the 22nd of May. But it is with great regret that I have had to conclude that, as things stand, there is still not sufficient support in the House to bring back the deal for a third meaningful vote.
I continue -- I continue to have discussions with colleagues across the House to build support so that we can bring the vote forward this week to this and guarantee Brexit. If we cannot, the government made a commitment that we would work across the House to find a majority on a way forward.
The amendment in the name of my right honorable friend, the member from West Dorset, seeks to provide for this process by taking control of this and the order paper. I continue to believe doing so would be an unwelcome precedent to set, which would -- which would overturn -- which would overturn the balance of our democratic institutions.
So the government will oppose this amendment this evening. But in order to fulfill our commitments to this house, would seek to provide government time in order for this process to proceed. It will be for this house to put forward options for consideration and to determine the procedure by which they wish to do so.
But I must confess that I am skeptical about such a process of indicative votes. When we've tried this kind of thing in the past, it's produced contradictory outcomes or no outcome at all.
There is -- there is a further risk when it comes to Brexit as the U.K. is only one-half of the equation and the vote could lead to an outcome that is not negotiable with the E.U. No government could give -- no government could give a blank check to commit to an outcome without knowing what it is. So I cannot commit the government to delivering the outcome of any votes held by this house.
But I do commit -- but I do commit to engaging constructively with this process. There are many -- there are many different views on the way forward. There are many different views on the way forward but I wanted to explain the options as I understand them.
The default outcome continues to be to leave with no deal. But this house has previously expressed its opposition to that path and may very well do so again this week.
The alternative is to pursue a different form of Brexit or a second referendum. But the bottom line remains, if the House does not approve the withdrawal agreement this week and is not prepared to countenance leaving without a deal, we would have to seek a longer extension.
This would entail the U.K. having to hold European elections and it would mean that we will not have been able to guarantee Brexit.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
CHATTERLEY: Let's get some context here. Bianca Nobilo joins me now and the Conservative MP Andrew Percy.
Great to have you both with us. We heard there ultimately from Theresa May, Andrew, was that she simply doesn't have the votes to bring her deal back to Parliament.
Where does that leave us?
ANDREW PERCY, CONSERVATIVE MP: I think that's true. There are not the votes at the moment. I still think there could be votes for this in the end because there doesn't seem to be a majority for anything at the moment.
I think what the prime minister actually said -- ill-advisedly, perhaps, on TV last week -- was factually correct, is that the House of Commons repeatedly cannot come to a majority view on anything.
So I think it's right she doesn't put the vote tomorrow. It can't go down again unless we can be relatively certain there's a good chance it will go through.
CHATTERLEY: What's the point of holding a whole series of indicative votes, when Jeremy Corbyn says, but will you actually promise to follow through on what Parliament decides in those votes?
She said, look, I've already told you I can't.
PERCY: Well, Parliament could vote for me to win the lottery tomorrow, it doesn't mean I will win the lottery. I think that's the prime minister's point, which is that it's OK for Parliament to agree in a position.
But if it agrees on a position that the E.U. has already ruled out, because there is another half to this negotiation, well, how does that get us any further on?
And I'm happy to have indicative votes.
But what happens if we end up with two or three options commanding a majority?
Because it won't be a knockout vote, I don't think. It will be, here are the options; vote on them.
So the House of Commons could vote for two diametrically opposed things.
How are we any further on?
CHATTERLEY: Contradictory but you could actually -- and we have seen this -- rule out a no-deal exit here and yet we're still bringing that into the conversation as a possible threat here.
BIANCA NOBILO, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, the prime minister spoke slightly differently about that today. She ostensibly seemed to want to again rule out a no-deal. She said Parliament won't have a no- deal; we shouldn't have a no Brexit. And I'm sorry for our viewers, she introduced what probably will become a new buzzword, which is slow Brexit, the further extension as another option.
But I think, Andrew, you're absolutely right to be cautious about the indicative vote because they are just that, they are indicative, they are advisory and when they've been employed in the past, I think 2003 was the last time around about the House of Lords, they didn't help resolve anything. There were seven options and none of them helped resolve the situation.
But I would say, it will be better for the government if they can do it on their terms and introduce and provide the options themselves and ask Parliament to vote rather than Parliament taking control and then the government's lost all semblance of authority and control.
JULIA CHATTERLEY, ANCHOR, CNN: So that was the point that Theresa May tried to point out today, she said, look, at some point there is a risk we lose this. What is the ultimate solution and a way to break the impasse here? Or is it going to be, this deal, but it is going to be, as you mentioned, two minutes to 10:00 p.m. on April 12th?
ANDREW PERCY, BRITISH MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT, CONSERVATIVE PARTY: Well, if we get to that, you know, 10:59 on the 12th of April, then Parliament won't vote for a no-deal because there just isn't a majority for that, which means, we are going to do one of two things then which is look at revoking Article 50, which I think would be a disaster for our democracy and would be the perfect breeding space for the far-right in this country. So I don't think we can go anywhere near that or we end up voting through the deal.
I mean, I have always taken the view as a Brexiteer that there's a lot I don't like about it, but everyone demands a compromise and that deal roughly is a bit of a mushy compromise. It is probably nobody isn't happy, which probably means it's probably the right solution. CHATTERLEY: And which is why you voted for the deal. Andrew Percy,
thank you so much. The exempted MP there and Bianca Nobilo, plenty more discussion to come. We will continue our special coverage after this. Stay with CNN.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
ANNOUNCER: This is CNN Breaking News.
CHATTERLEY: Hello. I'm Julia Chatterley live from outside the Houses of Parliament in London. As we return to CNN's Special Brexit Coverage. We are awaiting the Speaker of the House of Commons to announce the list of potential Brexit amendments. Kyle Walker and CNN's Bianca Nobilo are here to help explain what is happening. So let's talk about that now. What are expecting in terms of the list of amendments. What could potentially happen here? And how is that going to change the Brexit game?
NOBILO: Well, the amendments have not really -- they've had -- some of them have had a big impact on Brexit, but others have been a bit of a damp squid and there's a lot of excitement about them.
For example, the last time an indicative votes amendment came up, it lost narrowly by two votes. So tonight, we could see another amendment for that tabled by Oliver Letwin and Yvette Cooper, Hilary Benn for Parliament to take back control on Wednesday. That's very significant. Others, which would like to confirm a long extension of Article 50, to provide for a second referendum so that would mean the U.K. participating in the European elections.
Others on the other side of the debate would seek to reaffirm the referendum result and recommit to Brexit. So there's a real spectrum of amendments that Bercow has to select from today.
[12:35:07]
CHATTERLEY: I felt like as we were watching Theresa May speaking earlier, and you and I were talking about this off camera, we have a circularity problem going on here, all roads lead to the same road and back around again and we just keep chasing our tails.
Carole, would it make a difference if we saw tonight a vote passed that narrowly missed by two votes, as Bianca said, that would allow on Wednesday for Parliament to take control of this process because suddenly then, the Brexiteers, everybody has to recognize that it is Theresa May's deal ultimately or some other version, which is probably going to be softer.
CAROLE WALKER, POLITICAL ANALYST: Look, it seems almost certain now, looking at the state of play and the anger that there is here, the Prime Minister's failure to even bring her deal back again for another vote, that tonight we will see that key amendment which will allow MPs to take control of the Parliamentary process. We will have these indicative votes on Wednesday.
Now, that is, as you have been discussing, a perilous process. What's interesting is that the Prime Minister has already said that she's not going to be bound by anything that comes out of those though she will engage constructively with the outcome. That could mean just about anything.
I think the real difficulty for the government would be this. It is possible on Wednesday you could see a majority voting in favor of perhaps some form of Customs Union, a single market, a much closer relationship with the European Union than the government wants. Something that's already been ruled out time and again by this government.
You could then see an attempt by MPs to take control of the Parliamentary timetable again, and actually legislate for that, to try and bind the government's hands. Now, at that time you would have the government facing Parliament trying to dictate what it was doing, perhaps contrary to government policy, and at that stage, as the Brexit Secretary has already suggested, you might be in to a general election.
So there is a huge amount of uncertainty as to what this week's drama could bring.
NOBILO: And also, just the longer term repercussions of everything Carole just outlined that essentially Parliament would be rejigging its constitutional conventions under immense pressure on the fly with a sense of urgency when these things have taken centuries to evolve, so that's another consideration that really will change the way things have been done.
There isn't a precedent for Parliament to take control in this manner and actually affect flagship government policy.
CHATTERLEY: And we've been like that the whole way along though, it is unprecedented after unprecedented, and the government itself has been felling its way throughout this process at this stage, so what we're saying is depending on which direction these indicative votes, but also what we see in terms of what Parliament wants or will ultimately vote for in terms of taking back control, we could even see the government fall this week.
WALKER: You could see the government fall this week. Alternatively, and this is something that Downing Street is banking on, you could get to the end of Wednesday and either have a whole series of votes which result in no overall majority for no specific option, or indeed an overall majority for an option which she knows that many in her party would hate, and she could then bring back her original deal on Thursday and say, "Look, this is the best thing. Go for this. The alternatives are far, far worse." That is what appears to be what's left as a strategy from Downing Street.
NOBILO: And it's a dangerous game because then if there is a majority or something else, then it puts the Prime Minister in a very difficult position with so much political pressure on her to follow that instruction from Parliament.
But Carole is right, if it eliminates all the other options, then it is going to make her deal look better.
CHATTERLEY: Not when she keeps reiterating 17.4 million people voted for Brexit, and that's what we are going to try and pursue at this stage. A much softer version of Brexit is something very completely different at that stage.
NOBILO: Which buttresses the argument for the second referendum.
CHATTERLEY: Absolutely, but what if, she did, in terms of the sequencing decide exactly that vote, to do the indicative votes, to get a sense of what Parliament wants. She has already said she is not going to abide by them if ultimately she doesn't want to. She warned that they're contradictory. We could get no outcome at all at this stage and then bring the meaningful vote back in and go, "You know what, again, I'm giving you a final option here."
WALKER: Well, she may well do that and it is just possible that at that stage, her party could decide to rally around, that the DUP could decide to rally around, but you know, she only needs a few on her own side to hold out against her deal.
And particularly, if she has not brought the DUP on board, at the moment, they're not showing any signs of budging. And we could go through all of that process and she could still lose. And then I think the course ahead really does look very rocky, and I think then we would be back into no deal territory because, what are the other options? The other options would be a general election, another referendum, putting it back to the people.
[12:40:00]
WALKER: I mean, we've now got the new April 12th as the date by which this Parliament has got to come to some form of conclusion, and we could get to the end of this week, and we're still no closer to reaching a decisive decision on that.
CHATTERLEY: I think for the international viewers out there who have just listened to what you said, the fact that we've seen Parliament vote against a no-deal exit, but we are still talking about being back in the realms of a no-deal exit it just completely mind boggling. Stick with us, we're going to try to and keep this simple for you and break this down.
We are still awaiting for the House Speaker to talk in Parliament to let us know what amendments we see tonight. We will continue our special coverage of those Brexit developments right after this. Stay with CNN.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
CHATTERLEY: Hello, I'm Julia Chatterley live from outside the Houses of Parliament in London with more of CNN's Special Brexit Coverage amid the seemingly endless arguing here in Westminster. In many parts of the country, they just want the government to get on with leaving the E.U. People like those living in those towns such as Southend-on- Sea and Essex which voted to leave in the referendum, and Anna Stewart joins us there live now. Anna, great to have you with us. What are people there making of the ongoing debate and machinations of this Brexit negotiation? How annoyed are they or frustrated?
ANNA STEWART, REPORTER, CNN: Well, it's really important to get out of the Westminster bubble that you're currently in because every day we follow the minutia of Brexit this and Brexit that, amendments to be voted on, all the different answers.
You come somewhere like this. Southend-on-Sea, slightly further out of London and Essex, and they voted to leave the E.U. by 58%. Now, I would say the opinions I've had today are fairly mixed in terms of some people who voted to remain, some voted to leave. But one thing unifies everybody, and that has been a huge sense of frustration and confusion as to what on earth is going on and why we are not leaving the E.U. on Friday as they've been told months and months and months -- years ago at this stage, Julia.
CHATTERLEY: Anna, what else have you been speaking to them about in terms of what the options are if they don't ultimately see the Brexit that they voted for? What do they make of the alternatives here? A softer form. Do they understand the implications of perhaps what is going to be talked about as a Plan "B" here?
STEWART: So, this has been interesting. I've been going around and asking people what of the sort of seven options that are currently being considered in Parliament would they like? Would they like to revoke Article 50, altogether scrap Brexit? Would they like a second referendum? Would they like a free trade agreement like Norway? Would they like a softer Brexit? Would they like to stay in the Customs Union like the Labour Party?
And what is so interesting is some people have chosen all sorts of different things. I wouldn't say there's a majority for any of the options, perhaps that reflects Parliament, too, but also, there is a huge sense of confusion about what the difference is between the Prime Minister's deal and being in a Customs Union and being in a single market and frankly, I feel like people don't understand necessarily what we're looking at.
[15:45:10]
STEWART: They're still seeing it very much in terms of will Brexit ever happen? They don't really understand what's happened so far, and they certainly don't understand what may be happening this week and what may happen next, Julia.
CHATTERLEY: Yes, I don't blame them. Anna Stewart in Southend-on- Sea. Thank you so much for bringing us that view point. Now, we are waiting for John Bercow, the House Speaker of course to speak. Joining me now is Robin Oakley and Carole Walker is back with us once again.
Well, we're waiting for the House Speaker to speak, to discuss what amendments we're looking at for tonight. What are we expecting from him? ROBIN OAKLEY, POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Well, essentially, I mean, John
Bercow loves to hold center stage and he'd love to play up the drama of this yet again. But it seems likely that obviously, the one he will go for most of all is the one to allow MPs to take control of the timetable and allow the indicative votes to be held.
What is interesting is that the considerable concern there is in the House of Commons about the possibility of no deal still happening despite a very large vote against no-deal previously in the House of Commons, they just don't trust Theresa May, not to slip that through somehow at the end of the day.
So there are two different amendments down which would prevent the government from being able to do a no-deal exit.
CHATTERLEY: So voting again on a vote that we've already held where the vast majority of Parliament voted to rule out a no-deal. Just to confirm, that's what's going on right now just if our viewers are completely mind boggled by that prospect. Carole, the likelihood actually that Parliament do vote here to rule out once again a no- deal, just to confirm what they've already confirmed.
WALKER: Well, I think what seems likely tonight is -- we'll wait to see what the Speaker makes of his moment back in the limelight again. But I think a key vote tonight -- and he'll be very well aware of this -- will be this vote on whether MPs should be able to seize control of the Parliamentary timetable and those wider issues should then wait to be put as part of a series of options on Wednesday.
I think what's interesting is that the Cabinet met first thing this morning. There had been a lot to of hints and suggestions that the government itself might decide to prevent MPs seizing control of the timetable, and itself allow MPs a series of options, but it seems that that in itself was likely to cause such a backlash from a government that was seen to be saying, "Hey, you guys decide." She decided, if you like, to allow Parliament to take its course.
So I think this vote allowing MPs to take control will be the key one tonight. But I think what you're seeing here is there's already a further symptom of how much the Prime Minister has simply lost control of events. She's tried twice to get her deal through. She hasn't even been able to bring it back so far this week because she knows she still doesn't have the numbers.
She has MPs including former ministers openly saying that it's time for her to stand down suggesting that the deal will only get through if she does promise to stand down. And there is so much anger and annoyance at her leadership, which has brought the process to this stage that we are really in very uncertain territory.
CHATTERLEY: And just two votes separated that last time, the ability of MPs to take control of this process.
OAKLEY: Sure, it is very likely they would get the vote through this time, but I think there's also an opportunity here for leadership from the Labour Party, from Jeremy Corbyn because there's a growing mood in the country towards having a second referendum.
There's been a back-bench amendment around for a long time in the name of two Labour back-benchers suggesting that okay, lend some votes to Theresa May to get her deal through, but only on condition that there's a confirmatory referendum in the country. You have Theresa May's deal or we go back to staying in the European Union.
And there's a growing pressure on Jeremy Corbyn to give way to that. Tom Watson, who speaks for most of the moderates in his party lent himself to that sort of solution in the weekend march with a million people voting in favor of a second referendum.
The pressures are there. And to me, the awful thing about the exchanges between Theresa May and Jeremy Corbyn just now was all the people out there in the country, the few of them who can bear to watch anything about Brexit, must have been squirming in their seats in dismay because it was 3the same old same old, the same old lack of imagination, the same old pulling it on party lines, the same old lack of interest in the national interest and the same inability to work towards a compromise.
CHATTERLEY: Party politics rather than putting the nation first. Yes, we've had enough. Brits have had enough. Right, we'll continue our Special Coverage of the Brexit developments after this from Robin and Carole and myself. We'll be back in two.
[12:20:10]
CHATTERLEY: Hello. I'm Julia Chatterley live from outside the Houses of Parliament here in London with more of our Special Brexit Coverage. Just recapping our Breaking News this hour. Theresa May says she will not put her Brexit deal to another vote this week because there's simply not enough votes to support it in parliament.
Prime Minister May warns that lawmakers' attempts to take control of the Brexit process, as we've been discussing, would be an unwelcomed precedent and she says she is frustrated with what she calls the collective failure to take a decision.
Keep in mind, the E.U. said a short time ago that its preparations for an increasingly likely quote, "no-deal" scenario on April 12th is now complete. I want to bring back Robin Oakley and Carole Walker to talks this through once again.
Just before the break, we were talking the possibility of getting support for Theresa May's dale from Labour. The condition attached to that it seems would be to put it back to the people and let them vote. Would Theresa May's Conservative government back her deal with that condition?
OAKLEY: Yes, I mean, one of the difficulties here is the old party division. Labour supporters would not want to see their Party as it were supporting Theresa May's deal. Theresa May's Party, particularly the Eurosceptics wouldn't want to be seen to be coming around to some Labour compromise, for example a softer Brexit involving remaining in the Customs Union. And the eternal divisions on party lines will complicate the whole
issue and the whole business of trying to reach a compromise.
CHATTERLEY: I mean, that hasn't changed, the whole way along, this has been the problem ultimately. How do we break the impasse, Carole?
WALKER: Well, I think the difficulty is you have a deeply divided Parliament and you have deep divisions within both of the main parties. You were talking there about the pressure on Jeremy Corbyn over a second referendum. There are quite a few Labour MPs including labor front-benchers, those amongst Jeremy Corbyn's top team who are adamantly opposed to another referendum because they feel that it would be seen to be ignoring the will of the people in the 2016 referendum, and also because they just feel it would be so divisive.
There may have been a bit of a shift back towards remain at the moment, as far as we can judge from the polls, but it is by no means decisive. It is by no means certain which way that referendum would go. What does seem clear is that it would be pretty close and it would undoubtedly be an incredibly emotional, hard-fought campaign.
At the end of it, let's say that Brexit was put on hold for months, while another referendum was held, let's say that the country voted again to leave the European Union, we would still be back at the beginning of this process having to decide on the terms of our departure.
[15:55:07]
CHATTERLEY: Robin?
OAKLEY: "Brexiternity" we seem to be --
CHATTERLEY: Brexiternity and beyond.
OAKLEY; Forever and forever. And of course, this is only the start of the -- this is the disengagement from the political institutions of the European Union, there's the whole second half of Brexit to come, negotiating the trade deal with the E.U. in the years to come. There's going to be just as much divisiveness over that as it comes.
CHATTERLEY: And the belief was that ultimately, a new Prime Minister has to do the next part of this negotiation.
OAKLEY: Yes, I think Theresa May's time is limited, whatever she may get through this immediate crisis, but she is not there for very long.
CHATTERLEY: And right now, getting through this immediate crisis seems like a pretty tough challenge at this stage. We have 10 seconds, Carole, final thoughts.
WALKER: I think what Robin is saying is absolutely right. The Conservative Party are so exasperated with her leadership that they will not allow her to take the country through the next stage of the negotiations even if she gets through this one. CHATTERLEY: Let's get through this. Carole, Robin, thank you. I'm
Julia Chatterley. CNN's coverage continues after this with Hala Gorani.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[01:00:00]
