And the questions are...
As blogged last night, the Secretary of State for Wales has submitted her draft referendum question to the Electoral Commission for their consideration, according to her responsibility under the Government of Wales Act.
Not to be outdone, the Assembly Government are to submit their own version of a question to the Commission. This is despite the fact that both the Wales Office and the Assembly Government are represented on the Project Board that Cheryl Gillan told the Commons yesterday were responsible for drawing up the question that she's submitted.
A spokesman for Assembly Government said, "We are disappointed that we could not agree a question with the Wales Office. We feel the suggestion put forward today by the Secretary of State is deficient and does not accurately reflect the issue that voters will be asked to decide. We will therefore be submitting an amended, shortened version to the Electoral Commission as an alternative proposal."
So instead of using its much vaunted ten week consultation period to assess the intelligibility of one question, it seems the Electoral Commission will instead spend its time refereeing between two competing proposals.
Which is starting to lead some quiet mutterings - does the Assembly Government really want to win this referendum - or use it as a means for conflict with Westminster? Let's see how the Assembly Government take those mutterings on.
They're not going to take the mutterings very far at all in terms of their version of the question. The Electoral Commission is only funded to carry out its statutory duty - and that is to consider the question submitted to it by the Secretary of State for Wales. The alternative proposal from the Assembly Government will not receive any consideration as part of the formal consultation process.
Maybe not, says an Assembly Government source but a letter from the Electoral Commission, delivered today, confirms that their voice has been heard and that the Commission "will take your concerns into account".
It's a pretty basic concern too, says the man with the letter in his hand. The phrase: "without needing the agreement of Parliament first" is factually inaccurate. The right exists already to make measures without the agreement of Parliament so that phrase just isn't right.
In fact, he says, it's plain wrong.