Thread by @uk_domain_names

Ok, here we go... 4 motions have been selected out of the 8 put forward, but none will satisfy the no-deal headbangers.
- C Kenneth Clarke (Customs Union)
- D Nicholas Boles (Common Market 2.0)
- E Peter Kyle (Confirmatory Public Vote)
- G Joanna Cherry (Parliamentary Supremacy)

Points of order pouring in from all sides, as one might expect.

John Baron rises to complain about both his unicorn motions being denied (unilateral right of exit from backstop, and crash out with no-deal). Knocked back firmly and at some length (probably more than he *had* to) by the Speaker.

So we are left with 4 motions that will all progress Brexit in a rational direction, although several still have flaws. Nevertheless, we're definitely into the "wheat" end of the indicative vote process, having lost the chaff during stage 1 last Friday.

Bust-up over the confirmatory vote. Basically, all the MPs who want none of the 4 options are standing up to drain time from the debate proper with ludicrous points of order that have no hope whatsoever of swaying proceedings.

Quite an exodus of MPs as the points of order wind up. They don't even bother to hide their furious body language. Their goose is cooked because none of their super-damaging amendments have made it past the selection process. Presumably they'll turn up later for 4 "no"s.

Kenneth Clarke making the point that the HOC urgently needs to coalesce around agreeing on *something* to avoid no-deal, because that remains the default outcome of Brexit despite the many, many votes against it. He's not wrong!

Kenneth Clarke making another superb point that a confirmatory referendum is not in competition with the other options, but part of the process. He says that advocates of a PV don't advance the process if they vote for that but vote down all the various other motions proposed.

Eloquent speech, but KC has now been talking for a *long* time (nearly 25 minutes at this point). I fear he's rather forgotten how constrained the time allocated to the debate is.

Peter Kyle up now, championing his motion on a confirmatory referendum on whatever Brexit deal gets agreed by Parliament.

Some kind of disturbance going on in the viewing gallery, off camera. Not sure what. Lots of MPs looking distractedly in that direction.

Naked protest? Peter Kyle got a huge laugh out of "the bottom line is..."

So now we know...

https://twitter.com/MichaelPDeacon/status/1112755997918011392

Ironic that a naked protest involving bum cheeks pressed to glass is less of a farce than most of the Brexit process for the last 1,012 days!

It's obviously become an instant "thing" in that practically all MPs speaking since the protest have dropped in some kind of naked pun. Thus are traditions born. Somewhere deep in the dusty recesses of Parliament, someone's amending the latest edition of Erskine May.

Joanna Cherry makes the point that members of every party other than the DUP have backed her revoke-in-extremis motion. It's more nuanced than the one from Friday last week, and contains a number of steps to be enacted in quick succession, the very last of which would be revoke.

Like a series of nested backup parachutes. The last revoke one would only be opened at the very very last minute if everything else failed and we were hours from a no-deal crash out. Seems very sensible, and on that basis I am not optimistic about its chances.

She makes the enormously important point that she has secured a strong legal opinion to support the fact that even revocation would not take Brexit off the table for all time i.e. if a future HOC wanted to revisit the matter, it could under certain circumstances.

Trying to win over those who support Brexit, and leaving the EU, but fear no-deal (as they rightly should). Whether that will be enough to sway them, who knows. But it's a vital distinction to make.

Joanna Cherry: "This motion is an insurance policy to prevent no deal."

JC: "Supporting this motion does not preclude voting for other ones." Same point as Kenneth Clarke at the opening of the debate. Too many MPs seem to be treating the process as "my pet project or nothing" (Brexit in a nutshell BTW) whereas reality is *proper* compromise needed.

Dominic Grieve makes the solid argument that both the CU and Common Market 2.0 motions, while substantially less damaging than TM's deal, are far from what was promised during the referendum in terms of Brexit benefits. Neither offers the UK enough. (But then neither does TM's.)

PV supporters & Common Market 2.0 supporters seem to be trading flak across the HOC chamber. They don't seem to be able to get their heads around the fact that they're not remotely incompatible. A PV needs a Leave option. Better a saner Leave option than TM's deal, surely?

If the net result of this bickering is that both options fail to get a majority or at least strong support, they will eventually come to rue such intransigence, I'm sure.

Huw Merriman: "I have given up on Parliament delivering the outcome I want." Points out he voted for TM's deal 3x, no-deal twice, and against extending A50 and lost every time. So now he'll vote for a confirmatory referendum and trust the people.

He suggests a referendum featuring TM's deal vs remain, because "both outcomes would deliver certainty."

This is categorically the key speech of the debate so far. Whether it will win hearts and minds in the HOC, who knows? But there speaks a man who has stared reality in the face, studied it carefully, absorbed it, and adjusted his own position accordingly. Respect. 👏@HuwMerriman

"No deal biscuit". That was a new one, usually people fumble Brexit with "breakfast". Perhaps it's because no deal really takes the biscuit?

Caroline Spelman making an important plea for the need for certainty, because businesses can't cope with small increments to A50 because, for instance, car manufacturers may have to keep idling plants (several are shut right now because they'd planned against the 29 March date).

The infamous "no deal" letter (the one supposedly signed by 170 Tory MPs, calling for no deal) was raised with Stephen Barclay, who dodged most of the question.

Stephen Barclay: "People are taking positions one week, and then signing motions contradictory to them the next." He wasn't talking about Boris Johnson and Jacob Rees-Mogg, but the comment could have applied to them just as much to those seeking compromises on Brexit.

Labour will whip for amendments C, D and E.

Keir Starmer: "Any Tory Brexit deal would be subject to a referendum lock." Ah, yes. That's why Labour's keen. The way the confirmatory referendum motion's worded, it would not apply beyond the end of the current Parliament i.e. wouldn't apply to a hypothetical Labour Government.

Keir Starmer says that Labour's not yet at the stage of supporting a revoke backstop. My gut is "if not now, when?" and I'm sure a lot of MPs will be thinking exactly the same thing. Labour's stirred from the fence, but not enough.

Ed Vaizey: "This House wants to leave with a deal. But if we don't show tonight that we're in favour of a deal, I can guarantee you my colleagues will do their level best in the next 2 weeks to drive through a hard no-deal Brexit." Important and timely warning.

Greg Hands tooting the British exceptionalism horn very hard indeed. 5th largest economy, and blah blah blah. In one ear and out the other. Suffice to say he's not keen on anything on offer tonight.

He's arguing for Theresa May's deal (somebody intervened on him to say "but what are you for?") In other words, he's a null input to today's proceedings.

Two best speeches as we come to the tail end of today's indicative vote proceedings: Huw Merriman and Ed Vaizey. Honourable mention to Joanna Cherry for explaining revocation practicalities in detail, and Dominic Grieve. Those stuck with me. @HuwMerriman @edvaizey @joannaccherry

Worst one was probably Stephen Barclay's. A litany of wingeing and moans. But that's his job, I suppose. Generally the headbanger Brexiters stayed away in a huff because nothing on offer was hard enough for them, and proceedings were a great deal better for it.