Behind the scenes a constitutional outrage is brewing quietly.
It exists in draft (so I'm told). It has been shown to some initiates (think tankers, academics).
But it has not been published.
Let that sink in.
For all the focus on the meaningful vote, a vote approving the Withdrawal Agreement is only one of the pre-conditions for ratification.
The other is that the WAIB must be passed.
Let me repeat: no deal can be concluded until the WAIB has been passed by the House of Commons and the House of Lords and received Royal Assent.
Will this be a straightforward process? Well....
1. provide for payment of the "divorce bill" negotiated with the EU;
2. provide for the protection of citizens' rights;
4. and consent to remaining subject to the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice for the transition period (and longer in the case of citizens' rights)
If she cannot, there will be a no deal Brexit, or a delay.
Parliament will be asked to provide entrenchment for citizens' rights and the supremacy of EU law.
Entrenchment has not been done before
Others disagree. These are deep constitutional waters.
It is all about what 'taking back control' really means.
The scrutiny that this politically, legally and constitutionally significant legislation deserves would require a delay beyond March 29.
Remember: no WAIB = no ratification. See Withdrawal Act, s13
This should be too.
But they are going to be up in arms whenever this legislation is introduced.