Right we'll be off in a bit. Parliamentary debate on second reading of the government's legislation implementing the Brexit bill kicks off shortly parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/8b…
It's going to be an awful day. Several hours of debate. Then a vote on second reading. Then, assuming that passes, a vote on the programme motion. Then three hours of committee.
The second reading vote does not seem that important. Many MPs who will vote for amendments, and who might even ultimately vote against the bill, will vote for it at second reading in order to get it onto the amendment stage.
What really matters is the programme motion. If it passes, the government (govt) can get this thing through by Thursday night. An insane time period, in order to bludgeon it through.
The programme motion allows MPs to reject that timetable. It would show that they want more time to properly scrutinise it. There is widespread support for that, including among some on the Tory and independent Tory benches.
If it does not pass, it will also be an indicator that MPs are not going to stand up on this. If they can't even hold firm against such an obviously cynical and inappropriate timetable, they won't hold firm against anything. It'll be a moment of truth.
Boris Johnson is up.
He starts with a series of lies and threats. The lie is that the bill gets Brexit done. In fact it starts the transition period under the same no-deal threat and fundamental political dynamic as before.
The threat is on no-deal. He mentions Gove's theatrical and absurd triggering of Yellow Hammer no-deal prep and states that it can be turned off if they accept the legislation.
There are series of amendments coming out, which'll presumably be discussed a bit today. But ultimately this is not the moment for amendments - that'll come later if second reading passes. The main issue today by far is the programme motion.
Johnson says the deal "will unleash a great tide of investment". It'll release some, but the reality is that the Dec 2020 cliff edge in the deal, and the ensuing will-they-won't-they fight over it, will mean long-term investment faces the same problem it did this time last year.
Johnson says the arrangements for Northern Ireland (NI) are "transitory". This is false. They are permanent.
Lady Hermon, independent NI MP, says there is not a single sentence in the bill explaining the new consent process. "Do not take the people of NI for fools. We are not fools. The PM needs to explain in detail how his new consent process operates."
Saying that something is "transitory" because a four-year vote in an assembly that currently does not exist is quite an extraordinary mangling of logic and meaning.
No.10 now pulling out all the stops to threaten MPs not to vote against the programme motion
The absolute desperation to make sure this thing does not get proper scrutiny.
Tracy Brabin, Lab, says the bill has loopholes around worker's rights involving non-regression. This is true. Ministers must only state that a new British law doesn't maintain EU standards. Even if there's a vote, parliament can not keep the standard.
Johnson says "there can be no regression". This is a lie.
He then mixes in dynamism - keeping the UK in line with EU standards. Johnson says the Commons can "consider" those changes.
Melanie Onn, Labour pro-dealer: "There is a fundamental question of trust in his word, I'm sorry to say." She mentions unfair dismissal terms. Asks govt to write into the bill when consultations would begin on changes to those sorts of rights.
Johnson said those assurances already given and says he commits "to a date for the implementation of those measures".
Pat McFadden, Lab: "Does he agree with himself when he said 'we should go into these negotiations with a clear agenda to root out the nonsense of the social chapter, the working time directive and other job destroying regulations'."
"If that's what he said then, why should believe a word he says on this now?"
Johnson: "It is absolutely clear on the face of this bill and from what I said that this country will maintain the highest possible standards." This is a lie. It gives the govt power to lower whatever workers standards it wants.
Johnson says we will now have "the opportunity to do better". This is a lie. Under EU rules, you can do better than the workers rights standard as much as you like. It's a baseline below which you cannot go.
He justifies this by referring to the European Court of Justice (ECJ) case on Laval and Viking (not by name). Details of that here politics.co.uk/blogs/2017/11/…
This was indeed a bad ruling, but its impact is massively overstated.
Kate Hoey, pro-Brexit MP but loyal to DUP: "What more can he do to reassure the people of NI who do feel they are being cut off? The trading between NI and Great Britain (GB) is somehow now treated as if they are sending to a foreign country. That is not acceptable."
Johnson says NI is "leaving the EU with the rest of the UK whole and entire". That is legally true, but on any practical understanding it is a lie.
He then says "there will be no checks between Ni and GB". This is a lie. There will be regulatory checks. And presumably if the UK gets an FTA with another state there will be rules of origin checks.
Nigel Dodds, DUP: "Whatever he says about NI being in the UK customs union (CU), de facto the EU customs code applies in Ni, which requires exit declarations to NI. Yes it does. The Brexit sec said yesterday and had to be correct by HMRC."
Asks if in Dec 202, NI won't go into protocol if there's a free trade agreement (FTA). And that if they are in the protocol and an FTA is agreed, they'd automatically come out? For the record, neither of these things are true.
Johnson: "Just for the clarification, there are no checks GB-NI, there will be some light-touch measures...." Drowned out by shouts and mocking laughter.
Johnson says all these measures dissolve unless a majority of the NI Assembly votes to keep them. Relying heavily on the consent lock, which DUP think is insufficient.
He then says they'd be "replaced" by the FTA. But that's surely not right, because it wouldn't count for rules of origin or regulations. And regardless protocol would still apply.
Iain Duncan Smith, hardline Tory Brexiter, asks for assurances that when FTAs are negotiated, NI would be considered part of the UK. Johnson offers the assurance. But this is a legal technicality. The goods going into NI in practice are not treated that way.
Sammy Wilson, DUP: in Belfast agreement, a cross community basis is needed for agreements. "How does that square with the terms of this agreement which will be made on a majority basis?"
Johnson stutters. Thanks "him and his party" for helping to improve the bill. Again says the arrangements "evaporate, they disintegrate, they vanish", unless Stormont majority votes to keep them. So not much of an answer. But then Johnson must have given up on DUP by now.
Owen Smith, Labour: "He has said repeatedly today there will be no differences between way NI is treated vis-a-vis Kent or anywhere else in UK."
"Why then does impact assessment provided by his own govt slipped out late last night make quite explicit that goods moving from GB to NI wil be required to fill in import declarations and entry summary declarations."
Johnson once again says "these are transitory arrangements". Amazing.
Steve Baker, hardline Brexiter calls on MPs to "stand firm" behind Boris Johnson. Silly little weasel.
Jim Fitzpatrick, Labour pro-dealer, pitifully says he's really "grateful" for the assurances on workers' rights and wants assurances on consumer protection.
Johnson gives it, of course. He'll provide any assurance as long as it means nothing. Fitzpatrick is precisely stupid enough to believe him.
Caroline Lucas, Green, asks the really pertinent question: Will Johnson give an assurance that he'll extend the transition in 2020. Johnson says he can, because "we will negotiate a great new friendship and partnership within the time scale".
This is a lie. He will not develop a plan for an FTA, negotiate it, ratify it, and implement it in 14 months.
Liz Kendall, Lab: "At the end of the negotiations, we're going to face exactly the same dilemma: remain close, sign up to the rules, in which case we give up our say so what;s the point of Brexit. Or break totally free in which case what's the price?"
"We have not made that choice. This isn't getting Brexit done, it's continuing the agony for years to come." Kendall gets it.
Lot's of vacuous spittle-flecked gibbering from Johnson in response.
Jo Johnson, the PM's brother wants the closest possible relationship to European funding. God knows what's going on in that bloke's mind. He's been on many journeys, several of them back to the previous destinations.
Stephen Hammond, indie Tory, wants Johnson to look at the arbitrary deadline for settled status in Dec 2020. This provision basically ensures another Windrush scandal.
Meaningless emptiness from Johnson. "Delighted to say settled status is proceeding apace and we have every hope that entire 3.4 million will register by time of the deadline."
"The best way to give all our citizens confidence and security is to get this deal through tonight. This is how we protect their rights." This is a lie. The legislation makes it clear that in Dec 2020, any EU citizen will be thrown to the Home Office.
Johnson fighting hard against any amendment. "Is there anyone who seriously believes the EU would reopen the withdrawal agreement again. On the contrary our European friends could not be clearer."
I really do hate the way Johnson uses the words 'friends'.
PM now starts gunning for those prepared to challenge the programme motion. "I do not think we should be daunted in this House by the task we have before us. But let us work night and day if that's what it takes to get this done."
Pitiful. Framing his own cynical self-interest as some kind of Churchillian expression of national pride.
Gareth Snell, Labour pro-dealer, asks about Clause 31 - where the govt has absorbed his own previous amendment into the legislation. But he's spotted something. "Whether by accident or by sneak the PM has managed to add a small addendum."
This is the rule that any involvement of the House in the future relationship must comply with the existing political declaration - which rules out customs union and the single market.
Interesting,. Suggests there's a chance Johnson's restrictions might push Snell away from backing the deal.
Johnson says "the intention is to allow the House to participate actively and fully... if he reads the PD he will see there is plenty of scope for a very active and full participation". This is a lie. As Snell said, he bill rules out the Commons contravening the PD.
Johnson: "I will in no way allow months more of this. If parliament refuses to allow Brexit to happen and gets its way, to delay Brexit to January, with great regret the bill will have to be pulled and we will have to go forward to a general election."
So that's the programme motion threat confirmed then. But look close. He doesn't quite say that he would pull the bill if he loses on that vote. It's if the EU extends to January. Which admittedly would probably happen.
My own view is Labour should accept that and take this thing to a general election.
Just go for it. He's not that good. He'll be split against Farage. It's before the Brexit he promised to deliver. Anyway.
"The escape route is visible." Johnson winding up. "The deal is here on the table, the legislation to deliver it is before us."
Johnson done. Jeremy Corbyn up.
Huge moment for the Labour leader.
"We warned on Saturday that if the House passes the deal it'd be a disaster for our country. now as we look through the details of the bill we see just how right we were. Page after page of what amounts to nothing less than a charter for deregulation and a race to the bottom."
"Fails to protect jobs and the economy. Fails to protect every nation in the UK. This bill confirms that NI is really in the CU of the EU and goods will be subjected to tariffs."
Corbyn emphasising the export declaration forms required in NI. That Barclay admission yesterday really hurting the govt case today.
"The more divergence, the harder that border will become. The more risk it would put on the Good Friday Agreement."
Lisa Nandy, Labour pro-dealer, with an interesting intervention.
"Does he understand that us in seats that voted heavily to Leave feel this bill must be allowed to proceed to committee stage so that we can engage in the detail of the debate and see if there is a possibility of getting a Brexit deal that protects our communities."
"Our votes at third reading are by no means secure but we want to see if we can improve this deal."
Basically, amendments are only possible after second reading. So Nandy is not saying she'll back the deal - just to allow it go through so amendments can be attached, and then they'll decide if it's enough.
Corbyn says he wants to vote against the bill tonight, but recognises that they'll amend with a customs union in committee. He calls on his MPs to vote against but adds: "I do understand and respect the way in which she's approached it."
Well judged and seemingly genuine response from Corbyn. Both their positions are sound.
David Lammy, Lab: "Many of those areas that rely heavily on manufacturing - the deal as its set out and leaving the CU inevitably means tariffs, which inevitably means less manufacturing and less jobs in those areas."
Gloria de Piero, Labour pro-dealer: "I am also minded to vote in favour of a second reading, not because I support that deal but because I don't. So I want to improve that deal. Does he understand my motivation?"
Corbyn: "I fully understand her concerns. She is a great MP."
"I hope she will understand why I believe this bill should not be given a second reading." Seeks her support in opposing programme motion.
Stella Creasy, Lab, says the PM said he'd look at work-life balance EU Council director, but the govt has already ruled out to her that it would implement it. "One of the problems with rushing this through is not just what we'll lose but what we'll miss out on."
Nandy nodding her head beside her.
Jim McMahon, Lab: "This place can be quite intimidating at times. I came here believing that people who sound a bit posh and walked round with an air of entitlement somehow knew what they were doing. And if nothing else I thank the PM for disproving that at least."
Catherine McKinnell: "Every member in this House represents people who voted Leave and Remain. What nobody voted for was a wing and prayer, cake and eat it, blindfold Brexit with no impact assessments on the biggest transformation of our economy in peacetime history."
Fitzpatrick asks Corbyn if he'll lose the whip if he votes against his party.
Genuinely passionate response from Corbyn: "I believe in the powers of persuasion. And tonight I would like to persuade my honourable friend. Come with us. Vote against this bill. And vote against the programme motion."
Peter Kyle, Lab: "Over the last few years people across the House have asked many questions about the customs relationship between the EU and UK post Brexit. But nobody thought to ask the question whether customs arrangements in our own country would be affected."
"The PM should at that dispatch box apologise to the businesses in Britain, that trade within Britain, and are now going to have to start filling forms out they never would have had do before."
I'm impressed with Corbyn today. He'll never be a great Commons performer, but he is focusing on the right things, dealing with concerns on his own benches in a sensible & moderate way, and passionate at points.
He's now pitching, really to his wavering backbenchers, Labour's approach: "Commitment on customs union... hardwired commitments on workers rights, non-regression on environmental standards".
Iain Duncan Smith is talking so I've stopped paying attention.
Unconscionably stupid exchange between Frank Field and IDS. Field says when MPs offered the referendum they became delegates instead of representatives on this issue. IDS agrees. He voted against May's deal twice.
Emma Little Pengelly, DUP, says she's concerned there's a been a problem with the printing of the deal. She says there have been repeated assertions that the conditions for NI would disappear if there was a deal between UK and EU. "I cannot find those clauses within my copy."
As far as using points of order to make a political point that's a pretty good effort.
McKinnell: "I too noted that PM referred to checks being 'transitory'. I also share concerns that that is not in fact correct. The PM appears to need additional time to consider the real implications of the decisions being taken."
Very good.
Absurd moment. Rory Stewart interrupts a speech by the SNP's Ian Blackford, who is complaining that Scotland is being dragged out against its will, and says: "What about London?"
Blackford: "Scotland is a country. London is a city."
Obvious nonsense from Stewart, trying to shore up support for his London mayoral bid. He is planning to vote for the deal.
David Lidington, Con, one of the most knowledgeable people on Europe in the Commons, is up. He's had a very bad Brexit, speaking all sorts of tawdry nonsense under May. Alas, he is likely to do the same now.
Yep, that was useless.
This is a defining debate for MPs. The one that will define their careers. That's not on how they vote on the deal. Some have genuinely struggled between ideas of compromise and the gap between their own judgement and that of their constituents.
It's on the programme motion before anything else. Regardless of any view you have on Brexit, it's MPs' job to scrutinise the government and most of all to carefully assess massive pieces of legislation.
To vote for the government's programme motion is unforgivable. There is no tenable argument for it.
Lib Dem leader Jo Swinson turns to the Labour backbenches. "I speak as the former employment relations minister in the Coalition govt so I do know a little of what I'm talking about here when it comes to what the Conservatives want to do to workers' rights."
"Who would you rather trust? Would you trust Frances O'Grady and the TUC, who say this deal would trash workers' rights? Or would you trust the PM? He is a man who is prepared to say anything and sell out anyone if it is in his own personal interest."
Worth mentioning that the govt benches are largely empty. So not only are they not bothering to read or scrutinise the legislation, they are not prepared to listen to those MPs who are.
Usually the snapshots of an empty parliament are a silly meme. MPs do lots of things which require they're out the Chamber - case work, committees etc. But in this case, it really would make sense for them to be in there.
Dominic Grieve, indie Con: "We're all at the end of a long process in which we're all very tired and very weary. Also, we've said some quite hard things about each other, including within our own political parties."
"I wouldn't want this evening to pass without acknowledging firstly that those who argue we should leave on these terms have a perfectly valid point to make."
"The difficulty I have looking at this bill, is that I try to cast my mind a little bit forward to look at what this bill can do and can't do."
He aims at Labour MPs pushing for amendments. "We can try to change our domestic law, but it's a little bit like a letter of wishes to one's children. There is absolutely no guarantee the children will decide to carry it out."
Huh. I think Grieve just announced his retirement as an MP.
"If the PM wishes to follow up the passage of this legislation by a general election, I think I for one won't be in this House when it has to come back to reconsider the issues which this bill raises in the course of next year."
Has he said that before? I don't think so.
Would be a loss. The next election, whenever it comes, will basically eradicate moderate Toryism.
Sammy Wilson, DUP, expressing his outrage at what's in the deal. They'e been completely sold down the river.
"It;s our main market. We sell five times more to GB than we do to the Irish Republic. And yet we now find as a result of this, and a result of being trapped in the CU, we'll be subject to those checks."
John Redwood is up, brain like a piece of crumpled paper, spluttering out little scraps of bullshit.
Critical MPs are trying to "delay us enjoying the fruits of our Brexit vision". And what's the first one? "We will take back control of our fish completely."
But the man a fucking fish tank, he'd be happy.
Maybe they want to control the fish because they don't respect borders.
One thing about Redwood, he barely seems to age. He looks like he's been middle aged his entire life and now remains so.
Fucking hell. Remember the good old days, when he was irrelevant. Now we've remoulded the country in his image.
David Lammy. Thank god. My eyes were sinking into my brain.
"I think about very good colleagues and friends who are minded on this side of the House to vote for this bill, I think of what connects constituencies like mine and their constituencies in other parts of the country. It is most certainly a degree of deprivation and poverty."
"On the govt's own estimates, we would see a reduction of GDP with a Canada-style trade deal of 6.7% in our country. When you use a figure like that it almost doesn't mean anything. But in a constituency like Tottenham it means everything."
"It means the knife crime I'm worried about could get considerably worse. I don;t want the south side of Chicago in Tottenham. It means the jobs we need might not be there."
"How will that assist our country? On the govt's own estimates, in the North East - GDP reduction of 11%. In West Midlands - 8%. In East Midlands - 8%. This is massive. This is bigger than the 2008 crash."
"How can we contemplate, seriously, making this worse for those people." It's a brilliant speech from Lammy.
"And yet, I stand here, prepared to vote for this deal, on the basis that we put it back to the British people so that they can have the final say. That's how we get this done. We actually use democracy."
John Baron is up. He's like that door at the top of the stairs in that Doctor Who episode. You can't see it even when you look right at it.
Rory Stewart. Let's find out where he's at.
Ah, maybe a good place. "My big beg to the House, and here I am speaking to colleagues who voted for Brexit, is let's please in these very very final stages, do it properly."
"This is your great founding moment. This is your opportunity to create an enormous constitutional change that can last for 40 years. So do it properly."
Stewart valiantly pointing out that he has backed Brexit deals over and over again. "I'm not a member of this party anymore. I don't get any bonus points."
"But in return, people deserve scrutiny. This is a hell of a big document. I know they'll be many voices in the Chamber who say we've been talking about this long enough. We cannot think like this. This is our parliament. We cannot do down our parliament."
Well that's killed my snark. This is a really good speech.
"This was an exercise in regaining the sovereignty of parliament. And if it's about regaining the sovereignty of parliament, then treat parliament with respect. If you are taking back control, then show that you are worthy to exercise that control."
"This founding moment for you, instead of being poisoned with the stain of illegitimacy, instead of being associated with bullying tactics and a casual attitude to the Supreme Court, the monarchy & parliament, can instead be done in an honourable, responsible & proper fashion."
Justine Greening, indie Tory, says she has deep concerns about the deal, especially on NI. "They are real issues that affect real people. And to simply ignore them because it's inconvenient to take them on board is not only inappropriate but also dangerous."
Caroline Lucas, Green: "I want to speak out on behalf of those who do not share this govt's vision of a mean-minded little Britain, with our borders closed and our horizons narrowed."
"For those like me who are proud to stand up for the precious right to be able to work and study and live and love in 27 other countries, who celebrate the contribution made by the 3 million EU citizens in our country."
"For those who recognise that imperfect thought it undoubtedly is, the EU remains the greatest international venture for peace, prosperity and freedom in history."
Thank fuck for Caroline Lucas, man. Really.
No.10 now desperately trying scare tactics with both sides.
Bill Cash speech calls Lord Denning "our greatest jurist - without doubt the greatest jurist in modern history". This is a point on which @davidallengreen may have something to contribute.
@davidallengreen Laying it on a bit thick now. "These matters go to the very marrow of our body politic, which is the birthright of our citizens forged over centuries throughout war and peace."
@davidallengreen The marrow.
@davidallengreen "Anyone who opposes this bill, is effectively undermining our democracy and our self government." I hope he's cleaned himself up after that.
@davidallengreen Cash's next speech
@davidallengreen Owen Patterson, Con, shimmering on the very edges of lunacy.
@davidallengreen He quite literally has no idea what's he talking about. Wants assurances that when "we complete an FTA with the EU, all these current arrangements in the protocol will be dissolved". That's not in the deal at all. He simply has no idea what's in it.
@davidallengreen Steve Brine, indie Con, who seemed like he might be wobbling on the deal last night, confirms he'll vote for it today.
John Hayes almost entirely off his tits out there.
"There is a missassumption among unreconstructed Remainers about the character of allegiance."
"Pan-Europeanism may have a certain appeal to elements of the bourgeoisie, but it is no substitute for the shared sense of patriotic belonging that nourishes individual purpose and nurturers national pride."
I'm not making it up. He really is saying all this shit.
It's really quite a disgraceful speech, but he's such a parody it's hard to get cross. And anyway, his personality is its own punishment.
Tobias Ellwood says Brexit is distracting, but today is a day to "clear the fog". He has evidently not read the bill or is too intellectually challenged to comprehend what's in it.
Fuck I miss drugs. The worst thing I ever did was quit drugs and take up a career.
I say career. I basically just chat on the internet. But whatever.
Michael Tomlinson, Con, says many of those complaining about the programme motion rushed through the Benn Act. This bill with accompanying documents runs to 435 pages. The Benn Act was three pages.
Fuck does that guy do when he reads a leaflet? Get confused that it took less time than a book?
Right, front bench summing up now. We're nearly there.
Reminder: It's second reading first. That's very likely to pass. Labour pro-dealers who may or may not ultimately vote for the deal at third reading will back it. We will learn something from the numbers though.
Then it's the programme motion. This is the key moment. If the govt wins, we're properly up shit creek - no paddle, no food, no water. MPs will be capitulating completely to the government.
But if the govt loses, things will explode. Unclear if they'll pull bill, what it means for extension etc. But at the least, and I really do mean the very fucking least, MPs & peers will have the time to properly scrutinise the deal.
But yeah, I'm not going to sugar coat it. If the govt wins, we're fucked.
Robert Buckland, justice secretary, summing up for govt. Decent politician, shame to see him reduced to this.
"There comes a time when all of our ourselves have to look at ourselves in the mirror and ask ourselves: Are we up to the level of events? Are we truly going to serve the people who put us here?"
He does not seem to realise how aggressively that operates against the position he is defending.
State of the prime minister, really. He's such a brat. 
Oliver Letwin gets up to defend the deal and programme motion. "For those of us who wish to avoid the worst, it is better than the worst."
You can't give Letwin shit. He's done a lot the last few months. But really, on point of logic: How is properly scrutinising the bill 'the worst'? How is a three month extension 'the worst'.
David Gauke, indie Con, says he's still worried about a no-deal Brexit in 2020. Wants a vote in parliament on an extension before July 1st (when the deadline is).
Buckland seemingly concedes to buy him off. He says he can bring forward an amendment to "allow parliament to have its say" on the extension.
Desperate attempt to by off independent Conservatives here.
It could work. Letwin clearly voting for govt. But then Stewart earlier confirmed he'd vote against. I presume from Clarke's contribution yesterday he'll vote against too. Incredibly tight either way.
Ok, it's happening.
MPs now voting on second reading.
If you've got something to drink, I advise you do so.
Given they were dedicated to fighting this every step of the way, it would have been strange if they hadn't. Good news, but numbers still tight.
Bill passes second reading. Government wins.
Ayes 329
Noes 299
Ayes 329
Noes 299
That's 15 MPs who'd need to swap for it to be defeated at third reading. Uphill task. Not impossible.
We'll need a better idea of who voted how. The more Labour pro-dealers there are in there the better, because they're the most likely to turn against the bill.
MPs are now voting for the programme motion.
Given the numbers there, you would expect it to be defeated. DUP must have voted against. That's ten. Would expect there to be over five Labour pro-dealers and indie Tories backing deal who'd oppose programme motion.
But this is the squeakiest of squeaky bum times.
Fuck no. Mistake there. The DUP abstained. That's very bad. Means programme motion might well have the numbers.
Gauke seems to be voting with the govt, bought off by promise to amend extension. Also bad.
There'll be a lot of talk now about how a deal has finally won a vote in the Commons and fair enough.
But worth remembering that the fact it is legislation changes the dynamic - means MPs will vote for it to carry it through to point it can be amended. Wasn't the case with meaningful votes.
Just been informed that DUP didn't abstain in that previous vote. Sorry - all rather hectic here.
Result soon. Chamber full. This is arguably the most important moment in the Brexit saga so far.
Tellers coming in.
Programme motion defeated.
Ayes 308
Noes 322
Ayes 308
Noes 322
Hahaha
Fucking phew mate
Corbyn: "The prime minister is the author of his own misfortune. I make this offer tonight. Work with us to agree a reasonable timetable."
Johnson says "for the first time in this long saga this House has embraced a deal".
Johnson wanting to revel in it, but struggling to get over the setback of the programme motion vote. That massively complicates his plan.
Question now is if he'll back down in his threat.
"The EU must now make up their minds about how to answer parliament's request for a delay."
Johnson says he's going to pause the legislation until the EU makes a decision on extension.
"One way or another we will leave with this deal". Translation: Boris Johnson has finally accepted Brexit will not happen by October 31st.
Ken Clarke gets a point of order. "It is a point of order, almost, Mr Speaker."
He wants the PM to reconsider the decision to pause the bill.
"I can't quite see the logic of pausing progress on the bill." No I doubt anyone on earth possibly could to be honest.
Although I won't lie, quite happy not to be spending the next 48 hours watching Commons debates.
It's interesting that Johnson did not mention an election and made the decision to pause. That indicates he doesn't want an election. I'm guessing he will lobby Europe to extend to end of November. That would neutralise Benn Act but keep the pressure up.
Dodds gets up to ruin Johnson's moment. "On second reading, many hon members voted for that although they were against the contents of the deal."
"It is perfectly proper and right to allow further time for detailed examination of some of the most important legislation we will ever have to consider."
Jacob Ress-Mogg says the Commons will now go back to debating the Queen's Speech this eek. Incredible. Pantomime government.
Would you like to swap this cynically forced through bit of legislation for this other made up nonsense kind we prepared earlier?
Valerie Vaz, Lab: "This is no way to conduct business. We have been jerked around by this government."
Bercow says the technical term is that the bill is in limbo. For once, parliamentary terminology matches normal language.
Phillip Davies, Con, desperately inadequate, says those who opposed the programme motion were trying to thwart Brexit.
Margaret Beckett, Lab: "I had not intended to intervene in this exchange, but I am so offended by the remarks of the hon mem who spoke a few moments ago that I feel inclined to do so."
"It is not the truth. It is in fact something which we are only allowed to call a terminological inexactitude. In other words, it is absolute rubbish."
Beckett's good quality.
Full report: Johnson humbled again by parliament - and Britain now set for Article 50 extension politics.co.uk/blogs/2019/10/…
We're still up against it here. Clinging on by our finger nails. But the fight is on. And it is winnable.
Right, I'm off for dinner with the missus. Fuck this shit.
