JOHN Bercow is facing demands from the Government to allow MPs to have a "meaningful vote" on Boris Johnson's Brexit deal as the Prime Minister fights to fend off new threats to his plans.
All eyes are on the Commons Speaker as he decides whether to allow the vote to take place on Monday amid concerns that he may reject it because of parliamentary rules.
Johnson is also facing a court challenge over his extension request and Labour attempts to secure a customs union and a fresh referendum.
In his latest Commons defeat, Johnson abandoned plans for a meaningful vote on Saturday when MPs backed a move forcing him to ask Brussels for a further delay.
But because the deal had been debated, there are concerns that Bercow could block a vote coming back so soon because of rules over the same matter being discussed twice.
Chief Secretary to the Treasury Rishi Sunak denied that trying to bring the deal back for a vote was a bid to portray Parliament as being obstructive.
"It was an observation on the deal happening and I think what people need is a substantive vote," he told BBC Radio 4's Today programme.
"I think people are crying out to see that and they would find it odd if, because of some technical procedural device, we weren't able to have that vote."
If the Speaker does block the move, focus will switch to the Government bringing its Withdrawal Agreement Bill (WAB) before MPs on Monday, with a vote on its second reading on Tuesday.
The WAB is the legally-binding treaty that must be passed for the UK to leave the bloc, while the Government must also win a meaningful vote.
Brexit Secretary Stephen Barclay called on MPs to "respect the referendum" by backing the Bill, warning them: "This is the chance to leave the EU with a deal on October 31."
Ministers insist they could have sufficient support among MPs to get it passed so the UK can depart by the current October 31 deadline.
But, with no Commons majority, Johnson faces a major battle to achieve his cast-iron pledge.
Labour has denied it is trying to scupper the PM's agreement by planning to amend it to secure a customs union and a second referendum as the legislation passes through Parliament.
Shadow health secretary Jonathan Ashworth told Today: "We are not attempting to wreck it, we are attempting to safeguard the British economy, safeguard jobs and safeguard public services.
"We believe that the responsible way in which to leave the European Union is in a customs union arrangement and that, in turn, should be put to the British people so they can have a say on this."
Meanwhile, judges are set to decide whether the unsigned letter sent by the PM asking for a Brexit extension from the EU complied with the Benn Act, or if he is in contempt of court.
Johnson was forced to send the letter under the law passed by MPs trying to fend off a no-deal Brexit because MPs did not support his deal by the Saturday deadline.
But he signed a second letter and said a delay would be a mistake and judges at the Court of Session in Edinburgh are to resume a hearing on Monday.
The letters were sent after former Tory minister Sir Oliver Letwin handed Johnson an embarrassing defeat in the Commons.
Sir Oliver, who was among the rebels exiled by Johnson over their attempts to stop a no-deal, successfully tabled an amendment which effectively forced the PM to ask for a delay.
As Parliament demanded in the Benn Act, Johnson wrote to European Council president Donald Tusk requesting an extension to the end of January.
The PM did not sign the letter, and sent a second communication insisting that a delay would be "deeply corrosive" for the UK and the EU.
Labour accused Johnson of behaving like a "spoiled brat".
Meanwhile, the EU's process for ratifying the Brexit deal has begun, European Commission spokeswoman Mina Andreeva said.
She said the ratification process has been launched on the EU side, with Michel Barnier having already debriefed EU ambassadors ahead of debriefing the European Parliament Brexit steering group on Monday afternoon in Strasbourg.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules here