such confusion tonight. i'm lost. no such confusion tonight. i'm looking at a tweet from the deputy chief whip who is saying, we are voting no on the amended motion tonight, so after this vote there will be a vote on the emotion itself, the amendment motion, and presumably they are going to whip against it, so are they going to lose again? you would assume there lose again? you would assume there lose again. last time they did that they lost more heavily the second time they try to vote down the motion than they did the first time so motion than they did the first time so maybe they think some people didn't show up or whatever, but these are critical votes, you wouldn't expect to be stuck in the bar, see bit of thought it was just another opportunity to go down but something might depend on whether they lose this motion, on the margaret beckett motion and whether it would go into their column that they would expect another defeat. they lost letwi n by they would expect another defeat. they lost letwin by 20 votes.

they would expect another defeat. they lost letwin by 20 votesm just seems to point towards another defeat on the motion if they were against it. you gotta wonder if there is some tactic here, maybe it is in the interest of the government to look vulnerable. it is reported as the government defeated again so it is interesting pr. the optics don't look good every time they are defeated. can we just step back from this for a second? people at home will be watching with all of the uncertainty ahead of us, just three weeks before the new brexit date, the eu is saying it is more likely than ever that we could leave without a deal, and here is parliament talking to itself again. whatever they choose they would still have to pass the withdrawal agreement, so why don't theyjust get on and passed the withdrawal agreement and the line? unless you are a supporter of no—deal. we don't

consider the pack is ratified unless both of it and a political declaration because on the eu side they only have to pass the withdrawal agreement but in loewe have to pass both, so the government is tied and there's been discussion about voting on them separately, voting on the withdrawal agreement to get it through which lets you get back to brussels and say we're nearly there, let'sjust back to brussels and say we're nearly there, let's just figure out the political declaration.“ nearly there, let's just figure out the political declaration. if you do that you have 19 months of transition, due to start the clock and you have this debate later on. the prime minister was saying that the political declaration can change, that if the uk red lines change, that if the uk red lines change or the uk wants to firm up something then you can, their term was improve the political declaration so it is not a done deal like the withdrawal agreement which is legally binding. let'sjust listen to the result. the ayes to the right, 311, the noes to the left, 314. thank you, the ayes to

the right, 311, the noes to the left, 314. so the noes have it, the noes have it. unlock. the question is the main motion as amended. as many as are of that opinion say aye, contrary no. division! clear the lobby! as we indicated, they are going out now to vote on the government's and motion which as i was telling you the government is going to whip against, there on the beckett amendment only losing by three on that, so you can see that there is almost a majority in the house of commons to take no—deal off the table. we have seen a vote for that before. this is slightly

different in that it would be a motion put down seven days before brexit day, but itjust shows you the strength of feeling in the house. so we go out on the amendable motion and we see what happens. you are shaking your head when i said you could separate the political declaration from the withdrawal agreement. i'm interested as to why, could you not do that in transition? parliament has to approve both bits of the deal here. i thought that the most important thing for the eu was the withdrawal agreement and you could separate bat and keep the political declaration and have an extension. it is not absolutely clear. the government could in the eu withdrawal agreement bill which has to pass, set aside that bit of the rest act and say actually, notwithstanding the fact that we are supposed to approve both, let's go ahead and improve the withdrawal agreement and then talk more about the political declaration. or, actually, if you have a plan that

the eu has asked for, the other possibility is you could go back to europe and say, we could pass the withdrawal agreement but we need some changes to the political declaration then we could pass both of them and then the eu would be in line with existing uk law so there is much to be said for the idea to end the stalemate, do you have a problem with the withdrawal agreement? in principle there is little reason why the labour party should have any on it, because lots of things that they want are in the withdrawal agreement so that separate them rather than have this thing, lots of people are voting against the package because they don't like the political declaration. there are labour mps, lisa nandi has become the figurehead of this movement, voting against this not because they don't like the withdrawal agreement but because they don't trust the government thereafter so having even less on thereafter so having even less on the tray makes the problem worse for them. and it might be that the

amendment lisa mandy has ready for the next meaningful vote which gives parliament a say on the trade mandate, that could be away. you can put that in the withdrawal agreement but a government with a majority down the line, if you had a different sort of government that didn't want to do that, could repeal that bit of legislation. that is one of the problem is, you can't entrench things in uk legislation but you can introduce a clause giving parliament different rights on the future relationship so it has to be improved, it has to have a role in setting a mandate for those future negotiations. it might tie the government was not hansk too much but you could imagine with a lot of those things, the government might have shown more sympathy towards the lisa mandy amendment. before we get over technical... you lost me about a minute ago! before we get too technical, it seems the fundamental thing that has not happened is there has been no agreement over a customs union or whether it is a customs partnership and until you resolve that issue you

cannot resolve the issue of the irish border and that is what we are really about, here. the indicative vote, the one thing that might get a majority of votes on wednesday is a customs union. that would have course split the conservative party potentially for years, because the whole eurosceptic argument was that we are going to do these incredible free trade deals around the world. and if we stay in a customs union we cannot do that and that is why the prime minister has stayed away from that. there is no guarantee that there is a majority for it. every labourmp she gains there is a majority for it. every labour mp she gains as she goes towards a customs union she might lose a torrey on her own side but you remember more than that to deal with violent, you need single market rules in areas like agriculture. it looks pretty much like a backstop. this is why i cannot understand why labour cannot back that. on one hand, keir starmer arghus we are locked into the backstop forever then he says we want a permanent

customs union, they are one and the same. cynically, you could say, one of the reasons is because it is a government deal and labour don't wa nt government deal and labour don't want to be seen supporting it, and the labour leadership holds up the prospect of a special kind of a customs union. it will be interesting on wednesday if that is one of the options, a labour style customs union which the eu has ruled out, if parliament vote on that and there is support for it, it doesn't get us anywhere. it would then be a uk wide customs union, that was something that the prime minister did secure. it was originally going to be for northern ireland, but in the backstop does end because we will agree on a future economic partnership. don't forget even if the deal goes through that is the beginning of another few years. that is worth reminding everyone about. if you think it is all over when they get a deal in the house of commons, think again, because the whole process starts all over again on this future relationship.

absolutely, this is just on this future relationship. absolutely, this isjust the on this future relationship. absolutely, this is just the warm on this future relationship. absolutely, this isjust the warm up lap, this is just absolutely, this isjust the warm up lap, this isjust the business of getting out of the door. if the uk does get out of the door at the end of this by one means or another, then the far longer process begins in all likelihood of trying to work out what that future relationship looks like and all of the debates that we are hearing variations of now, from no—deal to something incredibly close like norway plus mac relationship with the eu and every conceivable position in between are likely to be thrashed around, particularly in a situation where parliament remains as hung and balanced as it is now. we might get into a situation after the withdrawal agreement is passed, if that ever happens, where, goes to a new prime minister or general election who knows? the maths might change. there is a huge amount, still, to come. but there is a huge amount of scepticism across the

house as we have been reflecting just now about the intentions of the government, the other site of getting through the door. that is why there are some who, whilst their own view might not be 1 million miles away from what is set down individual agreement are sceptical about backing it now, or sceptical about backing it now, or sceptical about backing it now, or sceptical about backing in any circumstance. just to bring you up—to—date on what is going on in the chamber, just a reminder, not that we need it, how finely balanced pollen is, a margin of just three finely balanced pollen is, a margin ofjust three on that margaret beckett amendment of being able to rule out a no—deal brexit, coming within three votes of another defeat for the government. the final vote of the night taking place right now, mps shifting in and out of the chamber as we chat, voting on the motion as amended. in other words, the motion that was down on the order paper at the beginning of the day that allowed this to take place, amended because of that defeat for