House of Commons
Parliament

Shadow leader of the House Valerie Vaz says "the treatment of this House is absolutely disgraceful".

Ms Vaz says the prime minister does not want to split the two Brexit documents, as she said on 14 January.

"The prime minister was right then, and she is not now," Ms Vaz says, noting that this is why Labour will not be supporting the motion.

"This is no way to run the government," she says, adding: "On the face of it, this motion breaks EU withdrawal law."

"The Parliament and future trading partners will not countenance this," she concludes, calling for the government to stop "playing games".

House of Commons
Parliament

Image source, HoC

Labour's Stephen Doughty asks whether the House of Commons Library - a research service for MPs - will be able to give them independent advice on what is going on.

"This looks to me like trickery of the highest order," he says, adding that MPs should be "fully briefed" on the status of tomorrow's vote.

House of Commons
Parliament

Ms Leadsom makes the point that if MPs agree to approve the withdrawal agreement tomorrow, then they will trigger the automatic extension of Article 50 to 22 May.

She says if MPs do not vote for the motion, that will leave in doubt the future arrangements with the European Council.

House of Commons
Parliament

Liberal Democrat MP Alistair Carmichael asks whether the prime minister will resign tomorrow if the withdrawal agreement is not voted through - or "if we have to vote against both documents to see the back of her".

The Speaker says: "I have no knowledge of that."

House of Commons
Parliament

When questioned whether the government motion for tomorrow is legal, Attorney General Geoffrey Cox says the proposal is "not only perfectly lawful, perfectly sensible, and is designed to give this House the opportunity of availing itself of a right that the European Union has given to us, to avail ourselves of an extension until 22 May".

House of Commons
Parliament

Labour MP Mary Creagh says the government is offering MPs a vote on "only one part" of the Brexit deal.

She asks about the legal advice the government has received on this.

In reply, Andrea Leadsom says the previous ruling by the Speaker means the vote tomorrow cannot be the so-called 'meaningful vote'.

House of Commons
Parliament

Andrea Leadsom says "we will be sitting tomorrow with a very clear purpose in mind - that is our only intention for tomorrow’s sitting".

Conservative Brexiteer Sir Bill Cash says the two documents (the withdrawal agreement and the political declaration) cannot be separated.

Commons leader Andrea Leadsom says the motion seeks to ensure the government can meet the requirements of the EU Council.

She says she hopes MPs will support the motion so that the withdrawal agreement can be voted on tomorrow.

MPs will be asked to vote tomorrow on the withdrawal agreement, the divorce deal with the EU, and are laying a motion to do so now.

The vote will not therefore be on the whole package agreed with the EU, which includes a non-legally binding political declaration about the long-term relationship.

Number 10 believes this is legally acceptable because the EU council conclusions last week only specified a vote on the withdrawal agreement, and it would guarantee that we leave the EU on 22 May.

House of Commons
Parliament

Commons leader Andrea Leadsom tells MPs that the motion the government has tabled for debate tomorrow has been "prepared" to comply with Mr Bercow's previous ruling.

Approving it would give the UK the chance to "secure" the extension to Article 50 until 22 May agreed by EU leaders last week, she says.

We don't want to be in a position to asks for another extension, she says.

Commons vote on EU withdrawal agreement planned for Friday in fresh bid to break Brexit deadlock

House of Commons
Parliament

Speaker John Bercow says the government motion complies with his ruling that the PM's Brexit deal could not be brought back to the Commons for a third time without "substantial" changes.

He tells MPs: "In short, the motion is new, substantially different and in conformity with my ruling of 18 March."