Hello, I'm Lucy Fisher and this is Political Fix from the Financial Times. Welcome.

Coming up, it's been a crunch week in Parliament for the assisted dying bill. A key safeguard has

been changed, the need for a High Court judge to sign off cases. Is it a sensible efficiency

or a move that could sink the legislation? Plus, Europe is reeling from the US's extraordinary

intervention on Ukraine. What happens next and what does it mean for Britain and its attitude to

defence? To discuss it all, I'm joined by my colleague Stephen Bush. Hi, Stephen. Hi, Lucy. Robert

Schimmsley. Hi, Robert. Hello, Lucy. And Laura Hughes. Hi, Laura. Hello.

So let's kick off talking about assisted dying.

We obviously one of the most consequential social changes in decades if it goes ahead.

But it's been a really naughty week of fierce and emotional wranglings in Parliament.

Laura, you've been covering this in and out for months.

You've been on the pod before to talk about it.

Just get us up to speed on what's happened this week.

So it's been a confusing whirlwind of a week because there's been a massive row, effectively,

over an amendment the author of the bill has proposed

at the very last minute, which massively and quite dramatically does change the shape of what it

looks like. So Kim Ledbita, whose bill this is, very late on Monday, it was briefing newspapers

that she was going to remove, in this amendment, a requirement for a high court judge to sign off on any application.

And instead replace that with a panel of experts, which might include a senior legal expert, but would not be a high court judge.

And for many MPs, this is seen as watering down the bill, and it's fed into arguments about a slippery slope.

You know, the law will change, etc., etc.

Why is it already changing so dramatically before it's even been passed?

...