It's not a "meaningful vote" as defined by section 13(4) of the Withdrawl Act but it's effectively the same thing. It's a meaningful vote from the perspective of the EU becuase they don't care about the PD anyway.

Whatever happened to the speaker's declaration that the government couldn't keep bringing up the same bill?

Is this actually different, or did everyone forget that?

This is not a repeat, it is some kind of sneaky half-vote just on the WA that will not ensure an orderly Brexit on May 22.

It appears that Theresa May is trying to run the clock past the April deadline for a long delay, so we're back in a "her deal or no deal" situation. Then again the EU will probably not stand for that.

A European Commission spokesman said: "The withdrawal agreement negotiated between both parties is indeed both necessary and sufficient to ensure the orderly withdrawal of the UK."

No what she actually wants is to pass this motion today so we can fix the May 22 leaving date and then we can move to the next stage. But seems the other parties are determined to continue playing political games instead.

> Whatever happened to the speaker's declaration that the government couldn't keep bringing up the same bill?

That's why they are voting on the withdrawal agreement by itself. They haven't done that before.

The government rules-lawyed it to be different by moving only the WA part rather than the WA+PD which it previously insisted had to be voted on together.

Bercow ruled yesterday that today's motion is sufficiently different.

I think that was part of the agreement on the new measures: If no measures pass, default to MV3.

No, that was not the case and this is not MV3.

The EU have said they will continue with just the WA they don't need the political declaration.