Coming up to the point when Bercow will make a ruling on whether the govt can hold another meaningful vote on its deal today parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/d0…
If he says it can, then all hell will break loose. We'll be right back where we were on Saturday, in a straight yes-or-no vote on the deal, without MPs seeing the legislation implementing it.
It's likely that a Letwin 2 amendment would be put down again calling for the legislation to be published. The govt has suggested that it would then pull the vote.
This is unlikely though. This matter was already voted on and the motion on Saturday was passed.
If the new meaningful vote is rejected by the Speaker, then we're all go for the legislation. It'll be published later today and then MPs will vote on the programme motion tomorrow, which defines the timetable.
OK we're off.
Bercow reminds Commons that Mogg used point of order on Saturday to announce plans for today;s meaningful vote. "Unfortunately" it was not a prelude to a business statement, which could be scrutinised.
Bercow said he heard concerns from MPs and reflected. About to give ruling.
Two issues: Substance and circumstance. On first, is today's the same on substance as that on Saturday.
He says he ruled on this issue on March 18th (with May's deal).
Saturday sought approval on the withdrawal agreement (WA) and political declaration (PD) - the deal basically. "Clearly the motion are in substance the same".
Sounds very much like Bercow going to rule against govt.
But he also has to consider if there has been a circumstantial change. "It is hard to see a significant change of circumstances that would warrant a reconsideration on the next sitting day"
Says govt could argue the change of circumstance is from the Article 50 request. "This is not persuasive. The application is part of a process rather than a significant event itself."
"In summary today;s motion is in substance the same as Saturday's motion and the House has decided the matter. Today;s circumstances are the same as Saturday's circumstances."
Bercow rules against the govt. The meaningful vote cannot take place today.
Given this isn't legitimate, what would be? Clearly, as the PM himself indicated, to introduce the EU withdrawal and implementation bill.
Ok that was all as expected.
Peter Bone: "When we were debating on Saturday no-one knew if the PM was going to send a letter or not." Amazing.
There'll now be loads of points of order. But the crucial thing is this: We're in the fight over the legislation now, which is a much wider battlefield. Contains opportunities for supporters of the deal and opponents. Mostly the latter.
People are saying the phrase "jiggery pokery" too much.
Bernard Jenkins, Tory, attacks: "I note the dilemmas you face mean on occasion you'll have to please some and not others. But it is becoming remarkable how often you please one lot and not the other lot."
Reminder - in Cameron's time, Bercow broke convention in order to help eurosceptics try to secure their Brexit referendum. Reminder 2 - Bercow's ruling is plainly correct on point of the rules and the morality.
Jenkins: "This motion was never voted on. It ceased to exist as soon as it was amended." That's not true. It passed.
It wasn't voted on, but it was passed.
Then another threat. "Can I just alert you and the House that my committee will be holding a hearing on the role of the Speaker. Mock shouts of "ooooohhh" from the benches opposite.
Bercow: "I haven't got off the top of my head a count of the number of times I have granted urgent questions and in some cases emergency debates to people of what was then called the eurosceptic disposition. And the honourable gentleman (hon gen) was one of them."
"I don't recall the hon gen complaining that I was giving him too many opportunities to make his point."
Also reminds him of what I mentioned - the 2013 amendment on a referendum. "When he was getting the decisions in his favour, he wasn't grumbling. He's grumbling now because he doesn't like the judgement."
Caroline Flint, Labour Leaver, trying to poke holes in the Benn Act. She's really gone full Brexiter the last couple of weeks.
Desmond Swayne, shouting about god knows what, barely in control of his mouth or his reasoning. 
David Davies, Tory MP: "Can you understand why some people perceive that the only consistency one can find in your rulings is that they always seem to favour one side of the argument and never the government."
Bercow thanks him for "his explicit direct challenge. I respect that. He's challenging me directly. I don't agree with him. I think the consistent thread is that I try to do what I think is right by the House of Commons."
God. The fucking despairing nature of this shit.
That's over now thank Christ.
Urgent question from Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn. He wants a statement from the PM on the publication of the legislation and his extension letter.
We get Stephen Barclay, Brexit secretary, instead. Says bill will be published and introduced for first reading today.
Barclay claims Corbyn is delaying publication of the bill by asking the question.
Corbyn: "I do admire the secretary of state (sec of state) for keeping a straight face while he gave that answer."
"The PM has not deigned to grace us with his presence today but I'm reassured that despite his pledge he's not be found anywhere in a ditch."
"The European Commission confirmed today that Brussels is now considering the terms of an extension. Can the sec of state tell the House when he expects any extension to be granted?"
Corbyn presumably doing his best here to get reassure Labour pro-dealers that no-deal is not a real threat.
Fucking hell what did I do in a past life to have to listen to Barclay talk so much.
Ken Clarke: "Can the govt stop giving this sacred quality to the date of Oct 31st? The date was not selected by the British public or the British govt. It was a compromise selected in the EU between President Macron and the rest."
Says the form should be settled "in a way that future generations will regard as much more important than whether we actually made it for a particular day in 2019".
Sounds like Clarke could be a possible rebel on the programme motion.
I say rebel. He's not actually in the party anymore. Old habits.
Hilary Benn points out that the Brexit secretary this morning admitted goods leaving Northern Ireland (NI) for Great Britain (GB) would need an customs exit form.
"How does that square with Article 4 of the Protocol which says that NI is part of the customs territory of the UK. It's either part of the EU or the UK, it can't be both."
Barclay concedes that some information will be provided by says process will be decided during the transition period. He;s weak on this. The reality of it is plain.
Barry Sheerman, Lab: "It's our sacred duty - not just to get on with it - to make sure that what the deal is, the quality of it, actually serves our constituents. We must take this business seriously and slowly."
You too can be glued to this page waiting for the legislation to be published services.parliament.uk/Bills/?group=d…
Refresh. Refresh. Live the excitement minute by minute.
Rare glimmer of good news. Sec of state for NI confirms that sections 58 and 59 of Offences against the Person Act are repealed.
That means the liberalisation of NI's abortion laws is set to take place at midnight.
Same effect for gay marriage. "The latest the first civil same sex marriages will take place is on the week of Valentine's Day 2020."
Owen Smith, Lab: asks NI secretary to confirm businesses will have to fill in export forms if they end goods to GB. "Can he tell us how that can be squared with the claim that NI will remain part of UK customs territory?"
NI sec: "As Ni sec I will be fighting for the interests of business and ensuring we minimise any disruption to their trade flows." Yes, cheers for that mate.
Mogg making business statement. Withdrawal bill second reading tomorrow, followed by commencement of committee. Wednesday, continued proceedings. Thursday, conclusion of proceedings. Friday: House doesn't sit.
Trying to get a bill of this size, of such significance, in that time frame is functionally insane.
Shadow leader of House Valerie Vaz responds.
Wants to know when bill will be published and programme motion put forward.
"At every stage the govt has been running scared of this House and democracy and it's now attempting to force through a flawed Brexit bill which sells out people's jobs, rights and our communities."
Mogg also confirmed that MPs would only vote on Queen's Speech next week. That whole thing was just the most preposterous theatrical sideshow.
Thing to remember: The Lords sets it own timetable for how long it would want to spend with the bill.
Mogg gibbering on about removing the "imperial yoke", like some kind of lunatic historian roaming the street at night shouting at strangers.
This really is the most extraordinary godawful cynical Jacobin shitshow. 100 pages. No impact statements. Ministers who do not even understand if Northern Ireland will have to fill out export forms to send goods within the UK. And they want to bludgeon it through in three days.
Interestingly, John Redwood asks about the deadline for amendments. Remember, they'll come from both sides.
Remember when we used to pride ourselves on being a stable country that did things properly. I mean just imagine.
Owen Smith reminds Mogg that the Lisbon treaty was debated for 11 days, Maastricht for 23, the Treaty of Rome for 22.
Mogg says Brexit has been well debated already. I mean, it's such a pitiful argument it's barely worth even shooting down, but this is a piece of legislation, not a debate over Brexit.
The timetable is incredibly aggressive and, like almost everything this govt does, seemingly motivated more by trolling than good sense. I wonder of that might put off figures, like Ken Clarke earlier, who are tempted to vote against programme motion.
Mogg now trying to turn the screws. "People who don;t vote for the programme motion will be voting not to have Brexit on Oct 31st."
Jeffrey Donaldson, DUP: "In the absence of the kinds of assurances we need from ministers, I have to say that what he's proposing in terms of proper scrutiny of this bill does not do justice to what the constituents I represent need."
Interesting. Sounds like DUP are odds-on to vote against the programme motion.
Peter Bone, Con, wants to know why the House isn't sitting to any time and not on Friday. Mogg says because MPs shouldn't have to stay all night and because it'll be in the Lords
Bone also asked if the govt would still continue with the bill if the programme motion was voted down. Mogg didn't reply.
Ken Clarke: "I do;t like to dwell on my status as a veteran. But I was here for Maastricht and the Europeans Communities bill when we first joined. They were both debated for weeks on end with many all night sittings."
"Two and a bit days of ordinary parliamentary hours is plainly quite insufficient."
Dreadful response from Mogg. Replies that Clarke "has always wanted us to remain in the EU".
Clarke gets up for a second question, not a thing that usually happens. "My longstanding preference for Britain to be a member of the EU is nothing to do with my questions." Says he'll vote for second and third reading.
Clarke focusing on Redwoods point about not holding all night sittings or on Friday. "Not sitting on Friday is not a way of accelerating procedures, it's a way of abbreviating them."
Lady Hermon, NI MP, says the bill has far-reaching consequences for the people of NI. She wants the PM and Mogg to go to NI and "explain to the people of NI why they only deserve three days consideration of the major changes to them".
Sounds like she may not be voting for the programme motion either.
Michael Gove now making a statement on no-deal. Basically trying to scare MPs into rushing through the legislation.
Says "Operation Yellowhammer is triggered". God, this is the most irresponsible horseshit imaginable.
"No-one would be happier than me to turn off those preparations and stand down planning for no-deal," he says, with absolutely no authenticity whatsoever.
Govt putting out new Brexit adverts with "new urgency".
Just incredible. A system ostensibly set up as a safeguard against shortages and chaos, now being wielded around in order to scare parliament.
Right, I'm going to chill for the evening. Long day tomorrow and might as well read that thing with fresh eyes.
This is obviously in no way associated with the fact I want to watch Watchmen
