Hello from Westminster and welcome to another monstrous day of Brexit.
Bercow has selected the Letwin amendment. It's on.
Will do full analysis and coverage when I can but having an internet nightmare.
I can confirm that Boris Johnson is making the most hypocritical and disingenuous argument imaginable, about why Brexit is important to secure the European peace, by undermining the institution which aims to do precisely that.
Johnson doing the best he can to appear statesman-like, making a historic and moderate case. None of the 'surrender bill' abusiveness of before.
OK so here's what's going on today. The PM's statement will go on for a bit, then there'll be a debate. Then MPs will debate and vote on the amendments. Then - maybe they'll vote on the motion.
The motion basically states that the House supports the deal between the UK and the EU. If that motion is passed, Brexit is happening, possibly as early as October 31st (there might be short extension needed for votes in EU parliament, passing legislation).
If the motion is rejected, the deal has been voted down. The likely consequence is that there would be an election, with Johnson pushing his deal and Labour pushing their alternative deal followed by a second referendum.
This all takes place against the background of the Benn Act. This stated that if the Commons hadn't agreed a deal by 11pm tonight, Johnson would have to request an extension of Article 50 to early next year.
However, the Letwin amendment changes everything. It says that the Commons would withhold agreement on the deal until it was passed as legislation. That means Johnson would have to request an extension of Article 50 tonight.
The government would then have to put forward legislation implementing the deal. That would be a beast of a law, huge, full of horrible little gremlins which could alarm the fragile coalition of supporters Johnson might have cobbled together.
The Letwin amendment is likely to pass. It has the support of opposition parties and - crucially - Purged Tories who would back a deal. The question is what happens then.
The amendment would attach to the motion, so it effectively neutralises it. Then MPs would normally vote on the motion as amended. This would mean little in practical terms, as the vote would not do what the government wanted it to do - pass the deal.
But it could have significant symbolic value. If the deal passed, even amended, the govt could legitimately claim that there is a majority for the deal in the Commons. So if they think they can win, they'll probably be tempted to try and get it through anyway.
However, there are rumours the govt might not push it forward to the vote. This would suggest that, even after the relentless pressure of the last few days in parliament and the media, they're still not sure of success. Their fear is that they will lose the amendment & the deal.
There are four key groups in play: The ERG of Brexit hardliners in the Tory party. Purged Tories, who were chucked out for rebelling against the leadership on no-deal. The DUP, who generally support the govt. And the Labour pro-dealers, who might back it.
Johnson needs pretty much all of them. He has got most, if not all, of the ERG, most of the Purged Tories & some Labour pro-dealers, maybe as many as ten. He has not got the DUP. This is knife edge. It's unlikely to pass or fail by more than a handful of votes.
Jeremy Corbyn is currently replying to the PM. Doing a pretty good job of it, for him. He focuses on one of Johnson's weak spots.
The deal would allow a transition period of until the end of 2020. After that there is a no-deal cliff edge - not on things like citizen's rights or budget payments, but on trade.
If it got to that date with no free trade deal in place, the UK would fall onto WTO terms. Some in the ERG are aiming at this. Some of the Purged Tories are wary of it. A lot could rest on whether Johnson can convince them both it'll be OK.
The reality is hard to describe. Free trade agreements (FTA) take longer than 18 months to negotiate. There's no way it'll be done in time. But the transition can be extended by up to two years.
However, if Johnson got this deal through he'd be likely to win a general election soon afterwards. And if he had a majority, he'd have the ability to fall out without a deal, or do pretty much whatever else he wanted.
Johnson response to Corbyn expresses mock disappointment. We're back into standard politics. "He hasn't been willing to trust the people of this country to adjudicate on him" with an election.
On any logical basis, that is obviously an absurd argument, given Johnson refuses a referendum on his deal. But nowadays that kind of shite barely touches the sides.
Ken Clarke is up.
He says he will vote for the deal "once we have given legislative effect to it". That's as expected. Clarke always said he'd take any deal. But clearly also backing Letwin amendment.
Johnson responds by dealing out classic nationalist rhetoric, talking about the "elites who run the EU".
Attacks Macron for supporting a banking union. This is the nonsense zone of low-grade euroscepticism. They attack integration, but whenever a problem arises that showed it was required - for instance the sovereign debt crisis - they ask why EU is so inept at dealing with it.
Ian Blackford for Scottish National party (SNP). Says PM didn't mention Scotland once in his statement. Says "it;s actually worse than Theresa May's deal". Says Scotland would get "shafted".
Hard to oppose his argument. Scotland voted Remain. It has been ignored. Now it is being pulled out against its will. And to make matters even more pronounced, Northern Ireland (NI) has been kept in EU single market and de-facto in the customs union.
I quite like Blackford but I do get the impression he practices these speeches in front of a mirror.
Scotland is being "treated like a second class nation by this government. How will he justify himself to the people of Scotland at the general election?" Pretty much writing the SNP campaign literature here. Or rather, Johnson wrote it. He simply repeats it.
Iain Duncan Smith is up, god help us all. Like a human skin stretched around snooker balls. Smugly laughing at his own inane contributions. Calls on Letwin to withdraw his amendment.
Says the "British people are dying" for a decision on Brexit. Yes Iain-spelt-wrong, but they're not all dying for it to be decided the same way.
Johnson on Letwin: Says it;s a momentous occasion and would be "a great shame if the opportunity to have a meaningful vote were to be taken away from us". Govt suspects it's going to lose it, so pressuring Letwin to remove it.
Lots of shouts and nonsense when Jo Swinson Lib Dem leader, gets up to speak. Bercow intervenes to shut up MPs.
Swinson: "The PM's deal removes protections on workers' rights, it puts a border down the Irish Sea and according to the govt's own analysis will damage our economy on the scale of the financial crash."
David Davis, former Brexit secretary, human grin unaware of its own redundancy, starts blathering on about Remainers undermining the govt's negotiations. Smattering of other watered-down conspiracy theories.
Nigel Dodds, DUP. Seminal moment here. "Weariness of this House on Brexit should not be an excuse on weakness on Brexit or weakness on the Union."
Total silence in Chamber as he speaks. "This deal puts NI in UK customs union but allies de facto all the EU customs union code. Yes it does. Yes it does. Read the detail."
Says there's no consent up front. "Drives coach and horses through Belfast Agreement. It was once said no British PM could ever agree to such terms and indeed those who sought the leadership of the Tory party said that at our conference."
Johnson: "I'm grateful to the right honourable gentleman (rt hon gen) in this sense" - that they made the original case together. But then insists the deal "is a great success for NI". The arrangements are temporary and determined by consent.
Then says it;s a pity that he should suggest one side or other in NI should have veto. This was exactly his policy just over a week ago.
For the record, Johnson right that arrangements are dertimined by consent, but they are not temporary. They are meant to be permanent.
Phillip Hammond up. Potential Purged Tory rebel. Wants Johnson to commit to the same promises on workers and environmental rights that May made to Labour MPs during Meaningful Vote 3 (MV3).
Johnson gives that commitment. Desperate attempt to appeal to Labour MPs. But it is unclear if it is the same commitment. It would all depend on whether the UK does a trade deal with the EU and on what terms.
Bill cash asks something about something, impossible to discern through the gibberish. Like intellectual cobwebs blowing in the breeze.
Johnson says today is a "vindication" of Cash's parliamentary career. Sort of correct. It is the triumph of the most tedious, right-wing, stuck-in-the-past , wasn't it better when there were children in the chimney, elements of the British personality.
Johnson says there will be no border down the Irish Sea. That is false. Simply false.
He immediately refutes it by pointing out that there are already checks in the Irish Sea.
Johnson almost identical to May. "Today is the day to put aside our differences and get this thing done". Same rhetoric, same appeal, just a few months later. Worse hair.
What will it take for Andrew Bridgens to buy a shirt with the right neck size. 
Caroline Nokes, another Purged Tory. Asks for reassurances that Pm won't keep suggesting it is "parliament against the people". PM says she is absolutely right. It's time for "parliament and people to yoke hands and get this thing done".
Years of this godawful muck and yet it still smarts. The people are not singular. And those who pretend otherwise only do so for their own reasons. Evidently in Johnson's mind, those hundreds of thousands calling for a People's Vote today do not count as the people.
Kate Hoey. Interesting one. Labour Leaver, but will probably vote with DUP. Wants to know that protocol on NI would be automatically changed in event of UK-EU FTA. He suggests it would, but that's not quite right.
Says the arrangements would be superseded. Mentions zero tariffs. Surely incorrect. There would still be country of origin checks.
CHris Leslie points out that the PM is refusing to publish an impact assessment of his deal. Quite incredible, when you consider the reality of that. Sure, we'll change this country's entire trading framework. No need to check if it'll work or not.
Oh good, now Chris Grayling, risen from the grave, a TV tuned to a dead channel. Starts muttering something about betrayal. Johnson, just like May before him, insists that the people of this country are "coming together".
It's almost word for word what May said when she announced her snap general election - people coming together, Westminster must unite.
Justine Greening former Tory, unlikely to vote for deal. Says the rhetoric of how he approached Brexit makes it less likely country can come together.
"Does he recognise that dismissing concerns of communities like my own is no way to bring even England back together. and dismissing concerns of other nations in the UK is no way to bring the UK and Britain back together either."
Johnson stutters something about now wanting to dismiss anyone's feelings. Of course he has no answer. He's spent his time as PM ignoring Remainers altogether.
And then, incredibly: Brexit "is the way that people can honestly and passionately express their pro-European views in a new, deep and special partnership." The double-think reaches explosive levels.
Barry Sheerman, Lab: "He keeps saying trust. Who will trust the British people? We should have a referendum so people can judge this deal for what it is."
David Gauke, Purged Tory. Says PM deserves credit for deal. But says that unless we get an FTA by 2020, there's a risk we'll leave transition without a deal. Will he commit to show same determination and flexibility on a future deal. Very weak question.
If you really think that you can believe a word Johnson says today about what he'll do in 14 months then you've been watching events in another country.
John Baron, ERG, says he'll support the deal.
Peter Bone, ERG. Interesting moment. He points out transition could be extended for two years. That would leave UK in EU six and a half years after referendum. Will Johnson rule out extending transition?
Johnson says he "would not want to extend" beyond 2020. This is the meat of the thing. Anyone who understands what is happening, knows the deal cannot be done by then. But then Johnson is not actually ruling out extension.
Johnson picking language carefully, to not rule things out but suggest to each side - ERG and Purged Tories - that he's on their side.
Lady Hermon, independent NI MP. Wants PM to reassure people in NI that there is nothing in his deal that undermines constitutional status of NI. "As a Unionist I need to hear a British PM making that commitment."
Johnson makes an "absolute commitment", because of course he does.
Alistair Burt, Purged Tory, says he'll vote for the deal. But says that if a new relationship is to work "the relentless, persistent and too often 1940s anti-EU rhetoric must come to an end".
Johnson says he's absolutely right. The astonishing hypocrisy, given his record. Then demands that Burt stop supporting the Letwin amendment.
Right, slight delay now, I'm going to get some coffee and inject that shit into my bulging fucking eyeballs.
Stephen Timms asks about the rules of origin checks. Johnson says "there are no new rules of origin checks". Sorry the fucking what now.
I presume that is Johnson relying on the transition period to squirm his way out of the question. But it is nonsense.
Sammy Wilson, DUP: "The PM said there'll be no border down the Irish Sea, but every good imported from GB into NI will be subject to a customs declaration, a physical movement subject to checks and tariffs have to be paid until they can prove where the goods are going to."
"He may have avoided a regulatory border between NI and the Republic, but he has put a legal, customs and economic border between the country to which we belong and the economy to which we depend. This will do a great deal of damage to the Union."
Tory MP clearly tasked by whips to keep get up and ask Johnson to confirm UK workers rights and environmental standards will stay as high as they are, in a bid to lure Labour MPs on board.
Johnson makes the commitments but they are paper-thin. They have been removed from the legal withdrawal agreement document and placed in the non-legal political declaration. The decision will be based on whether the UK wants to embrace the UK or EU. That's the truth of it.
And that battle will simply take place in the transition period. ERG types saying we need to 'threaten' no-deal and pushing for movement to the US, Remainers saying the opposite. The same endless drab horror show.
Steve Brine, Purged Tory. Clearly going to support the deal. Weak statement in which says his deal provides the 'loser's consent' for the 48%.
Johnson: My deal "give people who love Europe in broadest possible way the real chance to move forward". The incredible double-think that leaving the EU, the customs union and the single market somehow expresses love for it.
Weakening of the most advanced international cooperation organisation in the world. The overhaul of Britain's entire trading system to placate nonsense concerns over immigration. And the hateful spreading of nationalist conspiracy theories from No.10.
But sure. It's a great opportunity for people who love Europe. And if I could just do some extra yoga practice I'd be able to wear my arsehole as a hat.
Right, we're on to the motion.
So that was just the PM's statement and ensuing debate. Now the govt will move the motion. It is being moved by Stephen Barclay, Brexit secretary, like someone managed to turn beige wallpaper into human form.
Incredible. Terrible moment.
Barclay starts by referring to Mo Mowlam, who oversaw the Good Friday Agreement. Groans across the House. "How dare you," someone says.
Sudden grim mood. Another cry of "how dare you".
To mention her here, as the government takes real and unnecessary risks with the peace process, is actually quite obscene.
He moves on to attack Letwin. Says the amendment would render the vote meaningless. "The public will be appalled."
Do wish people would spend less time insisting they know what the public or people think and more time showing some interest in it.
Kevin Brennan (Lab): "The PM voted twice against the Brexit deal after the referendum. Why doesn't the govt have the courage therefore to allow the same privilege to the people of this country to make the same judgement on this deal?"
God Barclay's voice is like a drone. Almost physically impossible to sustain one;s attention when listening to it.
Hoey again. Says "many of us have longed campaign to leave the EU. Will he tell me now why there is not in this agreement the opportunity for the people of NI to opt in and consent to what has been decided."
Hermon kills Barclay reference to Trimble. He sits for the Conservatives. She again demands protections on the constitutional status of NI. "Do not quote Trimble at me. Give me a clear commitment."
Dodds. NI Unionists making a repeated series of attacks here. "On the opt-in point, that was in letter PM sent to Juncker, which was abandoned."
Asks about majority vote. "can we take it that policy of govt is to get away with vetoes on getting assembly up and running. SO that veto no longer applies. I see the PM nodding. That's a very big breakthrough for NI."
Barclay: "This is about a reserved matter that applies to our international agreements." Major error there.
Dodds up. "It is simply not true to say that agriculture and manufactured goods are reserved matters. These are matters devolved to the NI Assembly. This is just not correct. Please do not use that argument."
Johnson whispering to Barclay. Barclay says "the difficulty with that argument is that Stormont is not sitting at the moment".
Difficult moments here for the government. It doesn't seem to be swinging ERG types, despite their years of going on about how rock-solid their loyalty was to the DUP.
But it is a disarming sight. Watching parties for a nation in the UK emotionally saying they cannot live with what is being done, and a Westminster government try to force it on them anyway.
Purged Tory Alistair Burt says he won't back the Letwin amendment.
Baron again. "We as a collective body need a more optimistic note. We will achieve a new trade deal by December 2020, and we should be focused on that rather than all the minor detail." Imagine existing with a brain that small.
Gareth Snell, Labour pro-dealer. Says he'll back Letwin amendment. Says govt should accept it, then bring back legislation next week, then they could put their commitments on workers right etc in the legislation.
Snell suggesting this could actually bring more Labour MPs over. Those of us with "some reservations about the trustworthiness of the govt can see them written into the face of the bill".
Barclay not playing that game, kicks back against it, insists public want this done blah blah
Jonathan Reynolds (Lab) is still stuck in the world of empirical reality and causation. "What jobs and industries will grow on the back of this, to compensate for the loss of aerospace, the loss of automotive and so much more?"
Fucking hell Barclay is dreadful.
Dominic Grieve. "Quite apart from approving in its generality, we have a duty to the public to look at the detail of this deal in primary legislation."
"The impression the govt is giving is that by insisting that the Benn Act be effectively subverted and removed, that it has other intentions of taking us out at such a gallop that proper scrutiny cannot take place."
Bernard Jenkin, ERG, says the deal has "hardly lacked scrutiny given the number of times it has been debated and voted on in this House". He seems unaware the deal has changed, or uninterested in dealing with basic realities. Fuck, maybe both. Why choose?
Says he'll vote for the deal. ERG seem rock solid.
Caroline Flint, Labour leaver, says Letwin amendment is a "panic measure". Really angry pro-government intervention.
"In voting for the amendment, we'll be forced, even if a deal is approved to seek an extension. The Benn Act had only one motivation and that was to delay Brexit and stop it." The Labour MP gets the biggest cheer of the day from the Tory benches.
Jim Shannon, DUP: "Can the minister tell me how the Unionist people of NI, my children and grandchildren, will be secondary to a Unionist anywhere else across the UK."
"We have been treated as second class citizens and our opinion means nothing." The DUP rhetoric is absolutely damning.
Mark Francois, ERG, like if a sausage roll had found it's way into the chamber in The Fly. "The aim of the amendment is clear: The emperor has no clothes. It is to stop us leaving the EU at any cost."
"The ERG met this morning." Mock wave of "ooooohs" in Chamber. He says no member of ERG spoke against the deal .
He really is a spectacular bellend and his continued prominence stands as a litmus test of how extensively our political discourse has degenerated.
Barclay says that during cross-party talks Labour rejected its own proposal. Shadow Brexit secretary Keir Starmer intervenes. He says they were in the same room.
"He knows very well that was not true. The very idea I would not know our policy. He knows it. He was there. Withdraw it."
Barclay withdraws it.
Ed Vaizey, Purged Tory asks a sharp question. If Letwin passes and bill comes in next week, and passes by Oct 31st, then we leave on Oct 31st. If it doesn't pass, bill comes through, and doesn't pass by Oct 31st, we leave with no-deal. Yes or no?
Right to the heart of the trust issue. Barclay is not giving a yes or no answer.
Nick Boles, also behind the amendment, intervenes. "He does not want to answer the question so I will. If the amendment passes, and the govt brings forward the bill at the start of next week, and it passes before Oct 31st, we will leave without a delay."
"If the amendment fails and the govt brings forward the bill and some people in the ERG suddenly discover they prefer the idea of a no-deal Brexit and the bill fails, we will leave on Oct 31st with no deal."
Barclay hedging crazily but the reality is that Boles' argument is unchallengable on point of legal fact.
Barclay done. I have aged ten thousand years.
Starmer up.
"Huge decisions before us this afternoon. Not just getting Brexit done, but what it means for our country. There's a been a lot of attention on how the deal operates in NI. But that should not be allowed to mask the political project that is driving this deal."
"Any examination of the political declaration reveals its true purpose and the intent of the deal. No customs union. That strikes at the heart of our manufacturing sector. Decimated by Thatcher. My dad was a tool maker. We lived through those doldrums. "
This is brilliant by Starmer. Precisely the speech that needs to be made.
"When I go to factory or plant now I am proud to see the just-in time-process, the revival in parts of manufacturing. Go to those plants and management and unions speak with one voice: Don't take us out of the customs union. This deal does just that."
"And what of services. Nothing in this deal is different to deal of previous PM. The weakest of weak deals for services. That's 80% of our economy."
"It's clear what this deal does. It rips up our close trading relationship with the EU. The price will be paid in damage to our economy and in job losses and anyone doubting this should look at the words stripped out of the deal by the former PM."
He now compares May and Johnson deals line by line, pointing out where words like "as close as possible" have been removed. "Now it's said there are all sorts of assurances. But between the text as it was, those words have been taken out and that's not an accident."
Forensic approach, but with strong moral thrust to it. This could actually put some Labour pro-dealers off voting for it.
He invites Barclay to intervene. Why were the words "as close as possible" taken out the text? Barclay stays still. "Nothing," Starmer says, staring out him.
Now he says all the uses of the word "alignment" have been removed from political declaration.
The message behind each point Starmer makes is delivered to wavering Labour MPs: Don't trust him. It's a Tory stitch up. Our voters will be worst hurt.
Stephen Timms, Lab: IS his assessment that this deal would lead to new rules of origin checks on manufacturers exporting to the EU." Johnson denied this earlier.
Starmer: "Yes. And anyone who has read the text knows it."
Points out that major UK auto-manufacturers say they can;t take advantage of an FTA because they couldn't comply with rules of origin requirements. This is a crucial point, hardly ever mentioned. It;s why the FTA chatter is largely meaningless to many industries.
Grayling gets up. Maybe he'll have something really interesting to contribute on rules of origin.
He does not.
Norman Lamb, Lib Dem who could back deal. Says he has "agonised". But then warns that we're risking "enflaming Unionist opinion". Sounds like he won't vote for the deal.
Ana Soubrey, Change UK, points out backstop as an insurance policy. "This isn't a backstop. This is their future. It's essentially in perpetuity."
Starmer says the only two destinations are a bare-bones FTA or no-deal. Govt figures show that's a loss of 6.7% GDP growth in 15 years.
The Pm's letter to President Tusk of 19th Aug, said the point of the exit was to allow the UK to diverge from rights and standards of EU. "Let's nail this one. You don't need that if you want to go up and have higher standards."
"So anyone who wants to change the rule, is not doing it to have the freedom to have better standards. The only reason you need to diverge is if you want to go down."
Given that, he focuses on the level playing field issue. They;re out of the withdrawal agreement (WA) and into Political Declaration (PD). "It's obvious where the govt is going. I know they will disavow that. I know they want the deal through. They'll say never, of course not."
Starts to show how the remorseless logic of disconnection will force our "gaze across to the US. That's a different economic model. A deregulated model. In the US, 10 days is the holiday entitlement. Hugely powerful corporate bodies have far more power than the workforce."
Pat McFadden, Lab: "When we were in govt, the Labour govt did legislate to go beyond EU minimums many times. Much of the time we were doing that it was being vociferously opposed, particularly by the PM who built his journalistic career on attacking these kinds of measures."
Starmer really doing everything to minimise Labour votes for govt. "Some colleagues are tempted to vote for the deal because they believe it prevents or removes the possibility of crashing out on WTO terms. It does not."
"Under the previous deal, if the future relationship was not ready by the end of transition, the backstop kicked in. That prevented WTO terms. That's gone. This is a trapdoor to no-deal."
This is really a quite startlingly brilliant speech by Starmer: Relentless, forensic, logical, aimed right at the weak spots.
Quote Baron on TV the other day basically admitting that he was aiming for this. Baron gets up. "He is right with the quote..." Laughter. "But he has been very selective and taken it out of context". More laughter.
Starmer quotes Johnson from last November. It's damning. "Reg checks and customs controls between Britain and NI would be damaging to the fabric of the Union. No British Conservative govt could or should sign up to such an arrangement".
"Those who are considering today putting their trust in this PM need to consider how he;s treated his confidence and supply partners. Promise, then burn."
Letwin up to move his amendment.
He says he will vote for the implementing legislation but says the votes will be tight. "The PM has a strategy. I accept it is rational in its own terms. He wants to be able to say to any waverers, it's my deal or no deal."
"I understand that strategy. But we can't be sure such a threat from the PM would work. And I despite my support for the deal, do not believe it is responsible to put the nation at risk by making that threat."
This amendment allows the votes on the legislation to play out without the risk of no-deal. Short and sweet from Letwin.
Blackford is now moving his amendment for the SNP, which basically says we should just revoke the whole thing. Not much to concern yourself with here, it won't pass.
"Scotland has been totally and utterly shafted." Fair to say there is a significantly difference between Letwin and Blackford's approach.
Right, I'm going to take a quick vape break.
Thousands of people from the People's Vote march are now in Parliament Square. This is just the start of the march, most people I presume won't have even left the Hyde Park meeting site yet.
DUP are currently deciding whether they'll vote for Letwin amendment. It could win without them, probably-maybe, but their votes may well be crucial.
I struggle to see an argument against them voting for it. If they lose, and Johnson's deal passes, surely they'll want a chance to amend it.
Blackford has been talking for a very, very long time.
He has also said the word "shafted" a lot. Like, a lot. At least eight times more than was strictly necessary.
It's done. Theresa May gets up. "I have a distinct sense of deja vu."
"I intend to rebel against all those who don't want to vote to deliver Brexit." She hasn't changed. The language is still a dreadful, computer-generated muddle, and the arguments still pitifully weak.
She was of course always likely to vote for the deal, but really she had a way out. She had specifically said no PM could sign up to something like this.
Very warm response and strong support for the former prime minister from the people who conspired to destroy her.
May said if the referendum was not respected it would be a con trick.
Labour's Peter Kyle: "The only con trick is a PM who makes a solemn promise that there would be under no circumstances a border in the Irish Sea" and then goes "trooping through the lobbies to vote precisely for it. So I would expect a bit more humility from her."
He says there was one deal from the old May government, which was the will of the people. Now there's a new one, which is also the will of the people. "I make this simple point: Both deals can't represent the will of the people."
"If you want to know what people voted for, what the will of the people is, you can ask them."
Music from the demo outside waving over parliament. Sun is shining on the crowd. And yes, you may be able to guess that I'd rather be there than here.
Ken Clarke. "I hoped I would never be driven to finally deciding what my opinion is on the choice between no deal and a bad deal. What we have before us now is undoubtedly a bad deal. It's a very bad deal."
Says he voted for May's deal three times. "We cannot be accused of seeking to block Brexit and repudiate the wishes of the British public and all the rubbish the more fanatic Brexiters hail at us."
Clark says he will support bill but he'll clearly support the Letwin amendment.
Wilson, DUP. Could be important on whether they'll back Letwin. "We find that NI and Ni alone will be left within the clutches of the EU."
Remainers obviously unimpressed by words like 'clutches', but imagine being an ERG MP looking at this. Years of working arm in arm. And now they cut their allies off.
Lists the kinds of checks. "If anybody tells me that that does not represent an economic, customs, legal border, hard border, I don't know what a hard border looks like then."
"In debates in this House I've heard it said that if there were an additional camera, or one piece of paper to be signed, that would represent a break on the Good Friday Agreement because it would represent a hard border."
The damage here is extraordinary. The reality of it.
The govt has taken a delicate, gradually improving political situation, thrown a grenade into it, brings up all these old grievances, forces through slap-dash solutions, forces them through, w implications we can't possibly understand and haven't bothered trying to establish.
And all for what? Not Brexit. This is because we're leaving the single market and customs union. This is all because of an obsession with ending free movement, which wasn't even a problem in the first place. The absurd short-sighted, cowardly idiocy of it.
Also I must confess I have a weakness for a Northern Irish accent. Everything they say somehow sounds more important.
On Letwin: "We would be failing in our duty if we do not use every strategy which is available". That sounds like DUP supporting the amendment.
Oh God it's Chris Grayling.
Listening to him try to formulate coherent thoughts is like watching someone try to put a VHS tape in a DVD player.
He looks like one of the face masks they use in the Mission Impossible films after they take it off.
Liz Kendall: "We remember. It was precisely in order to cut rights and standards that Brexiters demanded for years we should leave the EU."
"Hon members opposite should be honest and say: 'we believe the future of the country is a low tax, small state deregulated country'. They've a perfect right to think that, but they should have the guts to put that to the British people."
Grieve: "The deal that's been present to us has many flaws. It threatens the Union of the UK very directly."
"If one looks at its detail, in terms of likely negotiating process next year, I'm left in very serious doubt it will in fact be possible to achieve an FTA. Therefore this House will be confront in 12 months time with very similar challenges to the ones we face at present."
On Letwin: "It is frankly extraordinary that a govt that says it wants to follow a sensible process then seeks to railroad that process in a way that makes it likely that proper debate will not take place."
Hillary Benn up now. One after another, some of the most impressive MPs in the Commons.
"It is no wonder the govt doesn't want to do an economic assessment, because it would show what the govt's last economic assessment showed."
Says that when Starmer outlined the consequences for businesses and industries, he "watched the euphoria that was evident on the benches opposite earlier give way to cold realisation".
Bill Cash, ERG, one of the more wobbly ones, says he will back the deal.
There is not a squeak of rebellion from ERG. Looks like they;re backing in en-masse. All the action is now with Purged Tories and Labour pro-dealers. More the latter than the former.
This is all going to go right down to the wire The Letwin amendment is tight. And the vote on the deal is looking razor thin.
Loud waves of noise and chants from the crowd outside.
Liam Fox insists the amendment cannot take no-deal off the table. EU can reject an extension. i think everyone understands that Liam. He is, as you might have guessed, in favour of the deal.
Antoinette Sandbach, Purged Tory, says she would like to support the deal. Says she cannot back the govt without assurances, because it is Janus-like. Those assurances come in the form of the Letwin amendment.
"The House may notice that I am saying very little about the content of the deal. I was always taught that if you have nothing nice to say, say nothing."
Debate winding up now. Rebecca Long Bailey for Labour. Quite nerve-wracking now. Approaching moment of truth.
"We are about to make history. In the final moments before we enter those lobbies, MPs will consider the weight placed on their shoulders."
"It's something no Labour MP, nor any other MP worried about protecting their community, could ever support."
Michael Gove up to counter for the govt. Huge cheers from the Tory benches.
Gove pitching hard for Labour pro-dealers. This could be effective. Says he respects both sides of the debate. "But I respect most of all the many people in this House who argued we should Remain but now recognise that the people having spoken, that verdict must be respected."
Absolutely huge crowd outside. People as far as the eye can see when you look out the window, covering every street.
Steve Brine, Purged Tory, intervenes, asking pointed questions of avoiding no-deal. There's a no-deal motion after the govt deal motion. He asks what happens if that;s rejected, which it will be, whatever happened. No answer from Gove.
Gove: "If we accept that amendment we will not have a meaningful vote today. We will have voted for more delay."
Here it is, right at the end. Johnson and Gove, the two Tories whose movement into Vote Leave suddenly made the Brexit campaign viable all those years ago, now fighting for dear life to try to get the deal through.
Gove giving it everything he has. "The time has come."
Huge cheers from Tory benches when he sits. OK, it's happening.
MPs are now voting on the Letwin amendment: Amendment A.
Reminder. If this passes, Johnson will have to write to the EU to request another extension. Then, probably next week, he will have to put down legislation implementing the deal. And only if that passes, will Brexit happen.
If this does not pass, then we are in the death zone: A vote on the deal, yes or no. If it's yes, Brexit is happening. If no, Johnson must extend Article 50, and - most likely - we're on for a general election.
Looks like the DUP will support the amendment - that makes it much more likely to pass.
Huge, deafening roars from crowds outside, echoing all over parliament.
I've never been in a building surrounded by hundreds of thousands of people roaring at it. It's like a medieval siege.
Everyone packed into Commons Chamber. But no tellers. Incredibly tense.
Here it comes.
Looks like govt lost.
Govt losses.
Ayes: 322
Noes: 306
Ayes: 322
Noes: 306
The Letwin amendment has passed. Johnson will have to request an extension of Article 50 by 11pm tonight.
Deafening, endless roar from crowd outside.
Johnson gets up. He might even pull the vote right now.
Sounds deflated. Defeated.
"The opportunity to have a meaningful vote has been passed up."
"I will not negotiate a delay with the EU. And neither does the law compel me to do so."
Incredible. But he will request it. He has to. Says next week he will introduce legislation to leave the EU.
Hopes EU leaders aren't "attracted by delay". Dangerous position for him here. He seems to be suggesting that he will try to undermine the request he is legally mandated to make.
Clearly intends to lobby EU leaders to not accept the extension request.
Corbyn: "The prime minister must now comply with the law."
OK so put aside any euphoria. That vote was one with 8 MPs. That means the DUP were vital to it. But it means something else too. There are probably more than eight Purged Tory pro-dealers, who backed the amendment. It suggests that the deal would pass.
Jo Swinson calls on the Speaker to suspend the sitting for Johnson to write the letter. Bercow: "It is not my intention to suspend the sitting."
Letwin says he is grateful for support. But says to those on other side of the House "our ways are now going to part", because he is going to vote for the legislation implementing the deal.
Dodds says he intends to examine all the details of the bill. "That is the basis upon which we will now proceed."
Bercow being repeatedly asked what Johnson meant in his comments, given he is now legally obliged to make the request.
He can;t answer. Suggests the leader of the House Jacob Ress-Mogg might provide details. Not likely.
Mogg up. He says Monday will have a debate on Section 30.1b of European Union Withdrawal Act.
I don't know what that means - trying to find out.
Ah, my bad - it was 13.1b. That explains a lot. It's the meaningful vote provision.
Cheeky bastards.
Govt desperately trying to wriggle out of this without bringing the legislation.
It seems likely that in the mean time, Johnson will be pushing the Europeans hard to not accept the extension request until a summit later in the month. Then they can bring all pressure to bear on parliament.
European leaders quite likely to accept that. They wouldn't say no to an extension, but they can hold back for now to help him. Their various comments, from ie Macron, suggests they might do that.
Mary Creagh asks Bercow: Is it in order for govt to put a motion before House which is basically defeated and then bring it again on Monday after bullying/bribing MPs?
Bercow says he will rule on Monday on this matter. Interesting. "The Chair seeks to be as dexterous and versatile as possible in attending to colleagues questions. it cannot always be expected that the Chair will do so immediately."
Basically, he's going to need to think it through and get advice. But he's not ruling out preventing the govt simply bringing another motion, rather than the legislation.
MPs also outraged that Mogg used a point of order to announce that he would change the business on Monday. That's not normal.
It also comes in the middle of what should have been the debate over the Queen's Speech, which was apparently so dreadfully important.
Very weird scenes as Bercow asks Mogg to speak to the House. He says there's "extreme ambiguity" about what's going on and people aren't clear what is happening on Monday.
Mogg there'll be an emergency business of the House statement on Monday.
Govt seems likely to try to suddenly roll MPs into another vote, limiting time for new amendments.
Chris Leslie: "The suggestion we should repeat the same debate on essentially the same matter would surely be contrary to all of our normal practices...
"...where the govt of the day, if a matter has been disposed of, cannot repetitiously and vexatiously keep asking that same question until they get the answer they prefer."
Clear what Leslie is going for here. This is exactly what Bercow stopped May doing when she was repeatedly trying to get her deal through.
Bercow says he will take advice and give a ruling on the matter on Monday.
My hunch, based on all the evidence of the last few months: Bercow will stop govt if he can find a way of doing so. It feels instinctively against the basic principles on which the Commons operates. But there may be some kind of technicality which gets them off.
Sun comes out and shines on the People's Vote march below. First day of sunshine we've seen in days. Not saying God's a Remainer of course but...
Letwin gets up and tries to influence the Speaker's thinking in an interesting way.
Basically, the govt can ask the same question again if the circumstances have significantly changed. Letwin now tries to kill that argument.
He says that Benn Act provided that if there's support in Commons for deal, after the Article 50 request, the letter can be withdrawn. "So what the govt is attempting to do is nothing more and nothing less than to repeat what would have been the effect of today on Monday."
Makes another point. He says House today passed amendment and then the motion as amended. That motion therefore withheld approval unless and until legislation passed on the deal. "This very clearly flies in the face of that."
Smart, on point legal arguments from Letwin. "I wanted to point those things out to you because I think it's material when trying to work out if it's orderly."
Bercow replies saying PM himself mentioned he'd introduce the legislation. That points away from Mogg strategy. "That too is grist to the mill of the concern expressed" by MPs.
And just like that Mogg gets up and just walks out the Chamber. Not even bothering to hear the objections that MPs are making. Cries of "outrageous".
Quite shocking. Govt loses vote. Then proceeds to immediately try to ignore it. Does so using a point of order, which places no scrutiny requirements on the minister, rather than a business statement, which would. And then just walks off rather than listen to complaints.
Bercow: "The apparent purpose of the said motion which ministers are attempting to table is to invalidate or obviate, the effect of the decision which the House reached today. And that does seem most curious or irregular."
Pretty clear now that Bercow will kick the shit out of this if he has the remotest possibility of doing so.
"The govt is not the arbiter of what is orderly. That cannot be so,. And it is not so. And it will not be so. And there can be no argument about that."
The House is now adjourned. The battle will continue early Monday afternoon, when this new attempt is either launched, or vetoed by Bercow. Enjoy Sunday, guys cos it's not going to get any less hectic for a few days.
Full report on what the fuck just happened in a bit. Oh and if you enjoyed reading this thread you are a) emotionally broken as a human being and b) should buy my book, which will be right up your alley canburypress.com/products/how-t…
MPs neutralise Johnson's attempt to pass his Brexit deal - full report politics.co.uk/blogs/2019/10/…
This fight is now on. It won't be easy. Johnson has the upper hand. But it can be done.
The battlefield has changed and so has the timetable. The odds are stacked against Remainers, but then they always are. This thing is winnable.
OK that's me for today - we'll have an emergency, cheers all.
Have just realised that this tweet involved me accidentally half stating that we'll have an emergency podcast up soon. It's recorded. But realistically it might come out tomorrow morning as the person who has to upload it is now quite pissed.
