Doesn't really matter if bill passes at second reading. It's after that that the amendments are made, which would, under the govt's own insistence, derail it.

The govt attempt to portray a second reading vote as proof of support is a nonsense - illogical by virtue of its own position.

Labour pro-dealers saying they'd back second reading doesn't mean much, because that is the stage they need to pass for amendments to become possible.

Commons debate of the Brexit deal kicks off in a bit and lasts until 2:30pm, when it goes off to the Lords. You can follow here.

I'm going to tweet along to the Commons bit because fuck it, what else is there to do. Just to eat and drink and be merry and relaxed, and why would anyone want to do something like that.

In the mean time, I strongly recommend this blog by @Brigid_Fowler of the Hansard Society

"Parliament’s role around the end of the Brexit transition and conclusion of the EU future relationship treaty is a constitutional failure to properly scrutinise the executive and the law."

The great irony at the heart of it all. This entire process was done to give parliament control. In reality, it is spending much less time scrutinising constitutional changes than when we were in the EU.

Trump has left the White House.

God what a lovely sentence to type. I might do it again.

Trump has left the White House.

Lovely. I didn't know fingers on keys could feel that good.

Is there a more beautiful sentence? I suspect not.

There's a tragic irony to Johnson's love of Churchill.

When Churchill became prime minister, he said: "I have nothing to offer but blood, toil, tears and sweat". He was honest about the severity of the situation and what it entailed. He didn't pretend everything would magically be alright.

Johnson's approach is the exact opposite. He runs from bad news like a dog from fireworks. He invents nonsense timetables by which everything will be fine.

He assumes the public need constant good news and sacrifices his own trustworthiness in order to provide it - it'll be over in six weeks, by Easter, by summer, by Christmas, by February, whatever.

It's equivalent to Churchill using his first speech as PM to insist the war will be over by Christmas.

This view that only government's can censor, that only state agents coming to your house and slapping something over your mouth counts as limiting free speech, really needs to be tackled.

The oddest part is that's it's generally the left which seems most content to let private companies wield extraordinary power over who can speak and how.

There are all sorts of legitimate reasons to limit free speech. Right now we are seeing one of them with Trump - to prevent incitement to violence and a threat to the functioning of democracy. But it is still censorship.

We need to be clear that that is what it is, rather than limiting our definition of censorship to the smallest range of actions conceivable.

This is not a new idea. Benjamin Constant, Harriet Taylor and John Stuart Mill were treating the silencing which comes from society as equivalent, or more dangerous, than that of the state hundreds of years ago.