They're voting on the Brexit bill in June

[StealthPolarBear]

But that isn't the withdrawal agreement. So what is it? Is it instead of the WA? As well as?

I think the Bill is the legalistic mechanism. To make the mechanism work. And so technically it hasn't been voted before so it addresses the Speaker's point about not bringing the same old stuff back again and again. Sort of.

Is it instead of the WA? How come theyve never worried about this bill before, when they brought the wa right up to the wire and claimed we would be leaving in three days (or whatever,) - we'd have left without it presumably then?
I assume this doesn't change the 'crash out without a deal' scenario?

If WA had been passed then they would've... I think .... had to do a quickie to get this law through. For it to become an Act there are all sorts of Parliamentary hurdles to overcome and if The Will of The Commons showed a majority for WA, then it would probably have been whipped through. I think this is the last stand of the WA.

And no, I don't think it changes the crash out scenario. We are dependent on the EU to give us another extension at 31 October for .... some other thing I haven't thought of ... if we don't get something through. If this fails, I think Brexiteers are banking on EU renegotiating the WA.
Or some other thing I haven't thought of.
Ffs.

Thanks.
Booze up and brewery spring to mind

I defer to other nerds like me if I have got this wrong.

The BBC says his vote is necessary if we are to leave the EU before summer recess. I didn't realise that was on the cards?

I am so confused!

Whose vote

I think it's a typo and means "this". You are correct, i think. If it were to go through we could leave before 31 October. But we still have to have the Euro elections.
I can see a scenario where the Tories get hammered in the Euro elections and start to feel nervous in Parliament enough to support WAB (its catchy name). I guess that's what TM is counting on.

Ah ok

{ I think this is the last stand of the WA.}

The WA HAS to be signed ultimately (if the UK is leaving), something that the whole of the UK has to understand.
I am assuming the WAIB is a small nudge along the road towards it happening.

You are quite right @1tisILeClerc . We have to have some sort of legislation to leave.

I am so lost. How does this WAB differ from the WA?

I think WA was the idea and WAB is the legislation

So they're legislating 'it' and hoping the details of what 'it' is will follow?

The WA is a routemap for departure. The 3 essentials that ARE a 'deal' are citizens rights, the exit bill (probably needs amending) and the backstop.
All the rest is (I believe) legal procedure to sever the various bits of legislation which the UK will then have to rewrite for domestic use when it has left. A degree of 'cut and paste' might be permissible for some of that.
When the WA is signed and assuming the UK wants a transition period, the PD which sets out the future relationship with the EU can be negotiated although it exists as a draft form already.
We may be bored of this already, but the real work hasn't even started yet, made worse by the fact there is no strong stable government that has a vision of how close the UK wants to stay with the EU.
Those yelling for 'out now and nothing to do with the EU' have no concept of how badly that could turn out.
The UK is desperate for a charismatic leader with great intelligence and understanding who has a very clear vision of the direction the UK wants to take and a very clear majority support, well over 70%.
Not happening any time soon.

The WA HAS to be signed ultimately (if the UK is leaving),

and. If I understand correctly, takes revoke off the table. We can only revoke up until a withdrawal agreement has been signed

I agree that voting through WAB takes Revoke off the table. Unless a new government (which is not bound by the old one) is elected before we leave with a mandate to Revoke. Can't see that happening. But, at present, I can't see WAB going through. Unless the Tories are so hammered in tbe Euros that they decide getting behind it is the only way. Particularly if Remain parties (which at this stage looks like LibDem) do really well.

{If I understand correctly, takes revoke off the table. We can only revoke up until a withdrawal agreement has been signed}
Mr Barnier has said for a long time that if the UK enters a transition period then revoking remains possible on the same terms as now, essentially because the various treaties etc won't be changing until the declared end of the transition period.
Revoking sooner rather than later would be 'least bad' of all the options as recovery can start 'immediately' whereas being in transition for (say 2 years while the UK finds a direction to go) and THEN start working through the necessary negotiations with the EU, will have sealed the fate of more businesses.
With the trade 'war' hotting up between the USA and China, and the prospect of a real war between the USA (and others) and Iran, such a good time for the UK to have no effective government.

I don't get it either. So if, as expected, this is defeated, what happens then? Surely the whole thing would collapse? The chances of the EU giving us another extension is remote. The German economy is suffering due to the uncertainty. Barnier told us not to waste the additional time. If near on 3 months of Parliamentary recess between April and October isn't wasting time, I don't know what is. If we get kicked out by the EU, then the MP's can reject no deal as much as they like. It wont make a blind bit of difference.

Am I the only one thinking that perhaps the importance of Brexit should override parliament's traditional calendar? God forbid that MPs should have to work for a few days over the Summer...

MythicalBiologicalFennel, I know. FFS.