Thread by @IanDunt

Right. Amendment-apocalypse has begun.

Bercow selects amendments from Corbyn, Blackford, Grieve, Cooper, Reeves, Spelman and Bradey.

It's on.

You can follow here parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/fa…

The PM is up. She moves the motion (which is just her statement from last week).

She says Common clear about what it does not want: No no-deal, no general election, no second referendum, no to her deal "in the form it currently exists".

She says we need to get a deal, we need transition, "it means caring about every part of the United Kingdom, including the people of Northern Ireland" - that final bit said pointedly.

"Today we have the chance to show the EU what it will take to get a deal through the House of Commons".

PM told she is supporting the Bradey amendment and is therefore voting against her own deal. That is true.

"Time and again members of the opposition benches tell I should listen to this House, now I listen to this House and they say I shouldn't have done it." That is false. She is listening to the Conservative party.

Now the threats start against Cooper amendment. May agrees with a Tory MP saying it fails to honour the referendum result. This is also false. It delays Brexit. It does not stop it.

Still. Only two outright self-interested lies in the first few minutes. Well below the usual performance.

May says this isn't last chance to vote against no-deal. There'll be a revised deal back in the House as soon as possible. This is true. Important point.

If they don't back that revised deal, she'll bring another motion. Wed Feb 13th will provide another moment for House to address the issue of leaving without a deal.

This is a way of killing Cooper amendment - telling MPs they can deny it support but still stop no-deal later on.

May asked why she won't support indicative votes. She replies by mocking Labour's (useless) Brexit policy. Another example of how Corbyn's inadequacies and lack of spine assist the PM to do whatever she wants.

May asked to "rule out" an extension of Article 50. She says that when people talk about extension it doesn't resolve the issue - but she does not rule it out.

PM asked what's changed since she said "rejecting the backstop means no deal". Does she agree with herself? She says they "retain our agreement" to stopping a border in Northern Ireland. But clear, as we expected, that she'll try and reform the backstop.

MPs keep asking her to give way, and she does so. Quite annoying because she hasn't said anything of substance yet really.

May on quite good form actually. Sharper than usual.

May says Cooper and Grieve amendment would have "far-reaching" implications on how the UK is governed. "While I do not question their sincerity, to seek to achieve this through such means is misguided and not a responsible course of action".

Grieve intervenes. He says it goes "solely to process, not to outcome. This House has never had a proper opportunity to debate options and to do it in a reasoned way."

She is asking House to adopt measure govt has taken up at last moment. He wants to give House space to "find where the majority lies".

No answer from May. She wants Grieve to think through the "long term implications" of his amendments - the reform of standing orders. This is nonsense. It only applies during minority government and even then would be rare.

Nigel Evans is the first Tory MP stupid enough to talk about prosecco and cars will save us. Literally. He's still fucking doing it.

Unionist Sylvia Hermon says, twice, that use of phrase "alternative arrangements" for avoiding a backstop, is "nebulous" - same word May kicked back against in Brussels.

May says EU "very unlikely to agree" to extend Article 50. So her amendment would not rule out no-deal but would delay Brexit.

Cooper up. "If PM does not get agreement from EU or this parliament for her next course of action, is she ruling out any extension of Article 50."

May again repeats that House will have other chances to stop no-deal. Clearly trying to tell MPs they can extend Article 50 if her latest negotiation attempt fails.

Cooper presses. She is saying House will have future votes, but her "credibility is limited". If parliament votes to extend Article 50, will she respect it? May says extending Article 50 does not rule out no-deal. She refuses to confirm, basically.

May slippery as fuck basically, both on those demanding she rule out an Article 50 extension, or those demanding she rule out ruling it out.

Yeah that;s right. As ever, she is a vacuum in space. Cooper: "I'm trying to understand what she is saying." She can't say she will leave on March 29th and also that parliament can have future votes to decide what happens next. Will she ever contemplate extension. "Yes or no?"

May, you might have guessed, does not give a yes or no answer.

May now attacking Corbyn for whipping his MPs against her immigration bill. She evidently does not understand what oppositions are meant to do.

Corbyn peering at her over the rim of his glasses.

May now on the road to full Theresa-tedium. Going over the changes she has supposedly made since her deal was defeated. In reality it is composed of one matter only: She has detonated her own deal by pledging to find an alternative to the backstop.

She says concerns of the House over backstop is that it could become permanent. "It is in all our interests for the House to back the amendment".

Just extraordinary to watch someone shoot their own policy in the face.

"Not a further exchange of letters but a significant and legally binding change to the withdrawal agreement." Incredible.

"I know there is limited appetite among our European partners. But with a mandate from this House I can secure such a change."

Quick reminder that yesterday deputy negotiator Sabine Weyand said: "We are not going to reopen the withdrawal agreement."

Nicky Morgan gets up to promote her own bananas idea. May says it is a "serious proposal" (it isn't) and she'll "sit down and work through" it.

Here is the full run-down on how monumentally stupid Morgan's idea is politics.co.uk/blogs/2019/01/…

Before this morning, I thought Morgan was a heavyweight and someone to be taken seriously. She isn't. It's a terrible shame.

Basically, anything which is dreadful, May says warm words about. Anything sensible, she calls a constitutional outrage.

"The concept we see crucially is alternative amendments which has already been accepted by the EU as a way out the backstop." What are the "alternative amendments"? No-one knows. They've no fucking idea.

Caroline Lucas: "The EU has ruled this out many times. You cannot have an insurance policy based on technology which does not exist". God bless her.

May: "They are not indulging in fantasies, they are coming forward with serious proposals." Yep. We're in the upside-down world. All words mean precisely the opposite of what you thought they did.

The Bizarro prime minister. Take whatever she says, negate it, and that's probably about right.

A vote for this amendments is the way to tell Brussels that the backstop is the chief obstacle, she says. It doesn't get any less amazing each time. A PM whipping MPs to defeat herself.

May tries the pound-shop Boudica shit she attempted during the snap election. "I will never stop battling for Britain but the odds of success become far longer if this House ties one hand behind my back".

Dear lord above.

Corbyn up. "Labour has been absolutely clear from the start...." Laughter.

It's just the usual Hallmarks style meaningless blather.

Badly delivered, barely thought through, almost completely without meaning. "We have to unite people not to create further divisions." On it goes.

"Many communities across this country have been neglected for far too long." It's his stump speech. Barely changed for three years.

CONTENT. Corbyn admits Article 50 will have to be extended. "It has now become inevitable that the govt will have to extend Article 50 in any scenario"

He says, rightly, that even if PM deal got a majority next month, she'd still not have time to pass the appropriate legislation or the required statutory instruments.

May intervenes. Oooh. "He;s just reiterated the need for a customs union." Will he extend union customs code, common external tariff etc. He leans towards Starmer. "It's no use asking the shadow secretary of state.

Corbyn wriggles out with nonsense about it being negotiated and how it needs to be open etc. Unicorn euphemisms, basically.

Point of order from Michael Fabricant. Says Corbyn inadvertently mislead the House. He said no-one said we'd leave customs union. Bercow slaps it down.

"It's not a matter of order for the chair, it;'s a matter for political debate as the grinning countenance of the gentleman suggests he is well aware."

And another point of order from Rebecca Powell. "It;s actually an observation really." Hahaha.

And with that, she's told to sit down. "I'm not interested in observations. Points of order yes. Observations no."

And on and on it goes. Basically MPs are using points of order because Corbyn won't give way to interventions.

And now Angela Smith with a point of order, following Jacob Rees-Mogg. I cannot fully describe how fucking pathetic this is.

This is one of the most important debates in this country's history. And this is what they are doing.

Corbyn up again. "I can well understand what the Tory MPs are trying to do here. They don't want to hear this debate."

It's still going on.

This is so embarrassing.

Now Nadine Dorries with a point of order on how Corbyn only takes interventions "from male members of his party". Corbyn: "I did take an intervention from the prime minister." That's a pretty comprehensive counter-example.

Interesting that Corbyn mentions People's Vote, and in a relatively positive way. "The PM says a second referendum would be like asking the public to vote again until they give the right answer but so far that is precisely what she is asking this House to do."

Corbyn confirms he'll back the Cooper amendment. "We are backing a short window of three months to allow time for renegotiation." (The Cooper amendment says 9 months but allows for the time to be altered".

Cooper up. "Can I reassure that the purpose of the amendment and the bill is not to fix any particular time or even to decide now what the extension should be, it is merely to give the House the ability to do so at the end of February."

Corbyn's insistence on a short time is stupid, but it may help keep Brexit-supporting Labour MPs on side. And you can argue that once the principle of extension is settled, further extensions become that much easier to do. Maybe.

If the House votes for any extension amendment, then the PM must accept "no deal is off the table and the red lines must change".

It is obviously false that a three month extension takes no-deal off the table. Laughably false, on a level oven a child could understand. But see previous tweet.

Corbyn says rightly that May now wants changes to the backstop but we have no idea what changes there are.

Michael Gove is up. Asks why Corbyn won't take an intervention from Angela Smith, "a member of the Labour party for 37 years". She has been trying for a while now, much to the Tory benches' enthusiasm.

Now Frank Field. he wants the Speaker to close the debate and give votes to all the amendments - basically turn them into indicative votes.

Corbyn really does not want to take that intervention from Angela Smith.

I might have missed it but nothing from Corbyn on the Grieve amendment.

That's very dispiriting. Grieve necessary to see if anything can secure a majority. If it can't, not clear an extension will even be accepted by EU.

Interesting that Ken Clarke, who does not support a second referendum etc, is now defending the backstop. It's potentially not just the dozen or so rebel Tories who'll vote against the govt amendment.

He then says he'll vote for "anything" which extends Article 50. "We need more time." Clarke voted for PM's deal. No guarantee here that, even with full govt and ERG support, the Brady amendment goes through.

Letwin gets up. He says if Commons changes standing orders, it is doing what it has always done. Clarke agrees. :"As this parliament has the temerity of having a range of views, standing orders [are] invoked against us."

Clarke points out the one and only pertinent point in this whole biblical shitshow: If we keep an open border with the EU through the single market and customs union, we don't need the fucking backstop.

Cooper is up. She says we've two months until the end of Article 50. May's deal weakens us. The PM is not instilling confidence that she has a plan to sort this out. That means no-deal can happen by accident.

The PM is responsible for the delays. There were 24 months for A50. 5 were used for the general election. Another 16 were run down before the govt even came up with the Chequers plan. And 22 had gone before there was even a deal in parliament.

There was no consultation on the PM's red lines and no Commons votes on the mandate.

Whenever the PM could pull back and reach out, she did the opposite. When she should have thought about the country, she thought about the party. Whenever she had chance to build bridges, she turned instead to the hardliners "who simply want to set those bridges on fire".

"Neither the amendment nor the bill block Brexit. They simply give parliament the right to vote on whether to extend Article 50."

"If we can't be honest about this at this historic time, I don't know what politics is for."

Dominic Grieve is up. "I have found the process of Brexit some of the most wearisome and unpleasant period of my time in this House."

"I suppose I should find some silver lining that an amendment I first proposed last summer & which was vehemently denounced by some as being about tearing the party apart, now appears to have something to commend it to the very people who denounced it then."

He's talking about his insistence on a meaningful vote, which is now being gleefully used by Brexiters to table amendments to the PM's motion. It's a good point. We forget too easily.

They used to go on about how this undermined Brexit and held back the government's negotiating hand. Now that they do not approve of govt policy, their constitutional and strategic principles appear to have changed.

"We are mired in complete paralysis." The PM's deal is probably the best available, but it doesn't match Brexiters' dreams and to Remainers clearly makes us worse off. So we need a way forward.

"We could do with more days of debate of this sort unless and until we reach agreement." If they do reach agreement, they can get rid of the remaining sitting days he has suggested. At the moment he is proposing six.

"The govt has sought consistently to restrict debate into an absolute straitjacket of what it wanted to hear."

"The idea this is some constitutional abomination, simply does not bear scrutiny."

"We are in control of our standing orders and changing them to get the debates we need is entirely in keeping with the traditions of this House and with the fact that the government simply does not enjoy a majority."

Bill Cash calls it "constitutionally homicide." The man is a gargling bellend.

Grieve responds by accurately summarising the extraordinary advantages of the British constitution. "This House can do what it thinks is right at any given moment and that is the flexibility that we need."

We have to respect the referendum. But that does not mean you drag the country out on terms no-one supports which on the face of it, "looks pretty bad".

It;s quite extraordinary that there is any debate over Grieve amendment. It does not say what happens. It simply says let's have a bit of time to sort out what the fuck we're doing. Telling that some consider that an abomination.

Really important section here. "The backstop is just the outward sign of a much more profound truth."

"Ever since we signed up to the Good Friday Agreement, to resolve on a permanent basis a constitutional issue of identity in Ireland, we have bound ourselves to keep an open border."

"The unpleasant truth is that this is incompatible of the aim of some of the hon members of wanting to take us to a future where we diverge on tariffs and regulation."

Graham Brady is up (it;s his magical amendment they'll vote on later). Bizarre argument against Cooper and Grieve. He accepts Clarke argument that House can change procedure. But "it is unwise to change without forethought, on the hoof, to do it for a particular purpose".

His speech is a drab constitutional muddle.

He then says MPs shouldn't change rules without "considerable forethought". I shit you not. This is a man who tabled an amendment replacing the backstop with "alternative arrangements" which he cannot specify.

Forethought, sweet Jesus.

"What I hope to demonstrae today is that there is an agreement which can win majority support in the Commons". Simply amazing. The only reason it has any support is because it has no meaning.

These people are like a Michel Bay film. They're in a war against meaning.

Quite powerfully stupid speech from Dominic Raab, the idiot's idiot.

"What I fear most about [the Cooper amendment] is that it will encourage the EU to delay in the hope that we will settle for worse terms"

Remember this is the man who was ostensibly in charge of negotiations.

"and it undermines the prime minister at exactly the point where we need to strengthen her hand."

Remember this is the man who quit as her Brexit secretary when she got a deal and then helped humiliate her by voting against it.

Raab says he'll vote for Brady. Nigel Dodds for the DUP now up to say they'll do the same. All the worst people are jumping on this latest piece of lunacy to wind down the clock.

Embarrassing to watch Damian Green get up to support the Brady amendment. He's not an idiot and it is pitiful to watch him pretend to be one.

"The House now needs to say something positive." Simply remarkable. That positive thing is an "alternative" which he cannot describe.

He then calls for "a bit more realism and a bit more cynicism". I just can't sometimes. I really can't.

The amendment "gives us the outline of a new deal [false] that might be successful in negotiations with Europe [false] and gives the British government a coherent position [false]." Literally not a single thing in that sentence is true.

Oliver Letwin says he voted for Pm's deal and will vote for whatever she brings back. He's "past caring" what the deal is, just that there is one.

But that's not what tonight is about. "Whether, in the absence of a deal, on March 29th - which is not an abstract fact, it is something that is actually going to happen - in the absence of this House taking action, we will leave the EU without a deal."

He accepts some think no-deal is good and others that the Tory party must not get in the way of Brexit. But what will happen "to this country and secondly to our party and take the risks of not having a real and if that goes wrong."

"I accept it may be perfectly alright. But it may not. It will be us and our govt to whom those difficulties will be attributed by the population of our country because when they elect a government they expect that government to look after them."

"And if those risks materialise, our party will not be forgiven for many years to come., It will be the first time when we have consciously taken a risk on behalf of our nation and terrible things have happened to real people in our nation because of that risk."

"We will not be able to argue that it was someone else's fault. I beg those who are still in doubt on our benches to consider that issue when we go into the lobbies tonight."

Brilliant speech from Letwin. Moral, principled, accurate in every respect, his voice trembling with emotion as he made it.

Very good speech from Tory MP Ed Vaizey, who sounds like he's had enough of this.

"I back the PM's withdrawal agreement and unlike some people in this House I will not turn my back on it and neuter it with a fake clause pretending it is amending an agreement when it is doing no such thing."

I understand why people are upset about Letwin saying he'd support any deal, but do check out the whole speech. He's basically saying he would do anything to avoid no-deal. Perfectly credible and honourable position.

Nick Boles is up. Says he committed to do his best to make a success of Brexit. He voted for Article 50 and with govt in every single division in the withdrawal act. "I a committed, seriously committed to making a success of Brexit."

"But there are two parts of that sentence. There''s Brexit and there's success. And Brexit on March 29th with no deal will not be a success. it will be a disaster."

Johnny Mercer gives one of those speeches you wish you could unhear. "Let's get this done so we can get out of the EU on 29th March. Please. Let's just get on with something else."

'Make it all easy so I don't have to think about it anymore.'

Tired. Hungry. Bored. Morally disintegrating. Please let's wrap this fucker up.

What terrible crime did I commit in a previous life to have to sit through this shit.

Oh cool. Keir Starmer.

May has indicated support for an amendment "which cuts across the very deal she negotiated".

"The danger is obvious, that the PM may build a temporary sense of unity on her own benches but in reality she is raising expectations she cannot fulfil."

Starmer now reeling through the PM's behaviour. When she went to Brussels seeking much lesser concessions, and she failed. What is she doing now?

Starmer suggests chances are we'll be back here in two weeks debating the PM's decision to extend Article 50.

"The word crisis is overused. But we should be in no doubt this is one of the greatest national crisis our country has faced in a generation. In the absence of leadership from the govt, parliament must act."

Starmer says he understands concerns, incl from Labour MPs, about extending A50. "But we don;t have the luxury of being bystanders in this debate. We are active participants. What our constituents are looking for in this debate is leadership."

"We cannot say we;re willing to prevent no-deal if we're unwilling to take steps to stop it. We must act and we must act tonight."

"Delay of A50 is now inevitable. It is irresponsible to pretend otherwise. That is the honest truth and our constituents need to be told it."

Very good and relentlessly logical approach from Starmer. May looks like she despises him with all hr robotic heart.

Stephen Barclay. Who the fuck is he you ask. Well, he is the latest Brexit secretary.

He's not very good, but then they never are.

Nigel Evans is competing for the stupidest contributions of the night. "Has he estimated how many billions of pounds" it would cost to extend Article 50, he asks. "Which public services would be damaged because that money was going to Brussels."

Amazing from Barclay. "It's an empty vessel. In essence a Trojan Horse." I'm not sure he knows what either of these phrases mean, because they do not mean the same thing.

The thing about the Trojan Horse is kind of that it wasn't empty mate.

Still, I'm sure these alternative arrangements will be fucking great.

Kate Hoey, Labkip MP for Vauxhall, says anyone trying to extend A50 will be "seen by the public as wanting to stop Brexit".

Barclay says people should not try to stop "Blexit".

He attacks Grieve. Grieve is looking at his phone. Man don't give a fuck.

He's still talking but I am finding it quite hard to focus on what he is saying. It is so tiresome. He makes May look like a charisma powerhouse.

Lady Hermon: breaks him apart. "I've waited very patiently but I've run out of patience. I would like the secretary of state to explain what exactly the alternative arrangements are."

He replies: "This will be part of the negotiation." Just amazing.

Monstrous mediocrity. Towering, like fucking kaiju-sized. It's like someone dropped some nuclear waste in a swamp of inadequacy and these are the monsters who grew out of it.

Right. Thank God the debate is over at least. We've the first division for Corbyn's amendment.

OK so here's how it all goes down from here on out.

The first amendment is Corbyn's. It's basically Labour's Brexit policy written down: Customs union membership, something vague on the single market, and 'all options on the table' after that, including a second referendum.

It looks like this. It will not pass.

Then it is Amendment O, by the SNP's Ian Blackford. It's just SNP policy. It looks like this. It won't pass either.

If the Corbyn amendment passes, then the SNP amendment will fall, as they're incompatible. But it doesn't matter, because it won't.

And yes, while you mention it, I am saying 'it will not pass' in a Gandalf voice. Fucking obviously man.

Then it is Amendment G from Dominic Grieve. It basically tells the government to fuck off for six days while MPs figure out what the hell they're going to do.

It looks like this. It probably won't pass, but there's still a slim chance.

Then there's Amendment B
from Yvette Cooper. This gives parliament superpowers to pass a bill extending Article 50 over the course of just one day.

It looks like this. This could pass but I am not expecting it to.

Cabinet rebels, who were threatening to resign to vote for it, have been bought off by May's promises of further opportunities to vote against no-deal. I think pro-Brexit Labour rebels will kill it, despite numerous Tory moderate rebellions in favour.

Oh wait. We've a result. Corbyn amendment fails by 296 to 327. Majority of 31

Then Amendment J from Rachel Reeves. This also demands an extension, but but by the amendment directly, not through associated legislation.

It looks like this. I don't think it'll pass. If Cooper's is passed, it is killed off. If not, I can't see this one winning that extra bit of support.

Then Amendment I by Caroline Spelman. Same same.

The finally Amendment N from Graham Brady, which pretends there is a magic answer and sends the prime minister back to find it.

It looks like this. I think it probably will pass. Quite a few Tory rebels but most ERG will vote with it. Plus a few Labour useful idiots. Plus DUP. Plus govt, obviously. That should see you through.

It is also very stupid, and my experience of the last few years is that the most stupid proposition wins.

My piece on the Cooper and Grieve amendments is here politics.co.uk/blogs/2019/01/…

And my piece on last night's pathetic Malthouse Compromise is here politics.co.uk/blogs/2019/01/…

Results for Amendment O by Ian Blackford coming up.

Blackford amendment defeated by 39 votes to 327.

OK they're now voting on the Grieve amendment.

OK so look, this is all very bad. MPs should have had the spine, the basic responsibility and the foresight to take over Brexit as soon as the PM's deal was killed.

That involved doing exactly what Cooper and Grieve proposed. Taking no-deal off the table and then setting up a forum for them to figure out what they would do next.

It looks like they are going to decide not to do that and to instead pursue the fairy-tale of meaningless vague promises of nothing.

However, tonight does not matter that much. There will be another chance to stop no-deal when May comes back and then again on Valentine's Day for a promised vote.

If that opportunity wasn't there, Cooper's amendment at least would pass. So even thought they are leaving it too late and is is unspeakably stupid and irresponsible to do so - this is not the end of the road.

Also, May's attempt to renegotiate the backstop will fail. All that has changed is we will just lose another week.

But yeah, I'm seeking silver linings in a world of shite.

Do you drink? If you don't, you should start. It is physically and emotionally gratifying. Either way, you should probably do so now.

Grieve amendment result coming in soon.

Grieve amendment defeated by 301 to 321

Fucking morons.

OK they're voting on Cooper amendment now. Still some chance this will succeed. Grieve was a bit tighter than I thought. If it passes it will be very positive.

Result coming up.

Cooper amendment defeated by 298 to 321.

Wasn't even close.

Really dreadful. Fuck is the matter with these people really. Really takes something to be suicidal and cowardly at the same time.

Only positive is that this is still within the margin of victory if you factor in those supposed votes from Cabinet who would supposedly resign in a supposed future vote on this.

But you wouldn't want to bank on that shit.

Sigh. OK, MPs now voting on Reeves amendment, also on extension. If Cooper didn't pass, not expecting this to pass.

I am now taking my own advice and drinking.

If that Brady amendment doesn't pass, it's actually quite unclear what happens now. All options blocked by parliamentary majority. Do we just hang a clown sign at the border and all go to bed?

Reeves defeated by 290 to 322

And on we go. Bottom-scraping our way to oblivion.

Spelman amendment next. Same result expected.

Spelman amendment PASSES by 318 to 310.

OK that's odd.

The amendment reads: "At end, add 'and rejects the United Kingdom leaving the European Union without a Withdrawal Agreement and a Framework for the Future Relationship'."

So what the fucking fuck does that mean?

Well it means that MPs are brave enough to support the idea of ruling out no-deal, but only if they do not have to support any particular way of doing so.

This can help May, because if she secures a majority for the Brady amendment, she can say the Commons rejects no deal and demands that the deal feature this change.

That's insane, but, well, those are the numbers. They are what they are.

However, there is one good point. It keeps alive the glimmer of the no-deal Commons majority. We've been relying on this, but tonight gave it a heavy pounding. The passing of this weak, abstract amendment at least shows there is some life in it yet.

OK Brady amendment result coming up. This is the moment.

Brady amendment passes by 317 to 301.

This is truly shameful. MPs have elected to follow unicorns rather than reality.

The motion passes as amended. Prime minister is up.

"A fortnight ago this House clearly rejected the withdrawal agreement. Tonight a majority of hon members have said they'll support a deal with changes to the backstop."

"The House has also reaffirmed its view that it does not want to leave the EU without a withdrawal agreement."

"I agree that we should not leave without a deal, however simply opposing no-deal is not enough to stop it. The govt will now redouble its efforts to get a deal that this House can support."

She is now going to hold meetings with no-deal amendment authors. Corbyn stands up. Says he will meet her too.

European Council president Tusk has already shot it down.

"Withdrawal agreement is and remains best & only way to ensure orderly withdrawal of UK from tEU. The backstop is part of the withdrawal agreement, and the withdrawal agreement is not open for re-negotiation."

Fucking hell what a cosmic shitshow.

Nigel Dodds says it has been an significant night. "For the first time the House by a majority has expressed the sort of deal that will get through and will have a majority."

This is false. The House has voted for a vague form of words with no meaning.

It is a vote against her deal without any idea how to do what it proposes.

Ok, that's it for this thread. Piece up on @Politics_co_uk in a jiffy.

Amendment-apocalypse: Spineless MPs just voted against reality politics.co.uk/blogs/2019/01/…

Full write-up of today's shit-parade and what it means. Hint: We're all fucked.