Thread by @faisalislam

Indicative Votes menu, selected by Speaker:

B Baron: Leave with our a deal
D Boles: Common Market 2.0
H Eustice: EEA/EFTA, No CU
J Clarke: Customs Union
K Corbyn: Perm CU
L Cherry: Revoke
M Beckett: Confirmatory Ballot
O Fysh: Malthouse

B - Leave WITHOUT deal... obviously.

O- is managed No Deal - Malthouse part 2. A different Malthouse amendment N not picked

the House of Commons now has ...

26 minutes per option to debate and decide between each of 8 fundamentally different Brexit options for the nation:

Between being in a Customs Union, leaving with No Deal, being in Single Market, Referendum, Revoke etc etc

Speaker Bercow also served up a new difficulty for Government if it is trying to plan to return to MV on Friday - said a paving amendment would not work, that the proposition had to meet the test of being substantially different

Actually Bercow incredibly emphatic - he has instructed the table office that “no such motion will be accepted” - ie a paving or notwithstanding motion that seeks to circumvent his ruling that MV3 must be sunbstantially different from MV2..

He has closed off a clear route to MV3

So question is this - does date change really make MV3 substantively differently to MV2? Date change being voted on elsewhere.

Does EU Council endorsing agreement made in Strasbourg fundamentally alter MV3 from MV2? It is a process point, does it really alter the substance?

The only person whose opinion matters on this is - John Bercow’s. It is his call.

Government could seek to ask the Queen to prorogue Parliament, though to end Parliamentary session and then start another one. But then it gets messy.

Speeches backing the options very good so far - extraordinary to think all these ideas have basically been suppressed by whipping system, and politics of alleged betrayal.

Eg Eustice now reminding MPs was this House pushing ahead with forming EFTA in first place, decades ago...