John Bercow has just spent over at an hour dealing with a Points of Order, in which he has argued that he is defending the soverignty of the House of Commons and that is his duty, not to simply to be a cheerleader for the executive.
Taking back control seems to have rather upset ERG Brexiteers.
As Jess Phillips astutely pointed out:
"People only care about procedures, and protecting and conserving the procedures, when they don't like the outcome of the thing that is about to happen and never when it is going in their favour."
And given what we have seen the Executive do over the last few months in terms of trying to use procedure for its own political gain, this is quite a fair point.
There are however certain constitutional questions this is all raising. And we have a very real constitutional crisis here.
Bercow has ruled that he CAN allow an amendment (because the previous vote had prevented only a motion and a debate) put forward by Grieve to go to a vote.
This amendment would - if it is passed by the house - require May to report to the house within 3 days if the WA fails to pass next week.
This would be a significant victory, if it passed because at present the position is where May can delay reporting back to the house until it start to get to the point where politically the opposition can't influence things, and a 'meaningful vote' will in practice be more like a gun to the head by the Executive, rather than the House of Commons acting in a sovereign manner and being free to make its own decisions rather than be forced into a corner by Parliamentary Procedure and the politicking of Parliamentary Procedure to undermine the independence of the HoC.
Allowing more time for the opposition to hold the government to account, does not necessarily change anything. It just means the executive can not just run down the clock in the way it perhaps has been intending.
The HoC could of course, vote against the amendment.
The WA is to come to the HoC next week.
And we have no idea what the hell is going to happen next.