The EU has stated that the agreement negotiated by May will not be amended. Parliament has rejected that 3 times. An extension was agreed and nothing has changed in either parties' position. The opponent's of the government's position want another extension (to achieve what nobody appears to know) and are refusing to allow an election to be held.

I appreciate that the remainers don't want Brexit to happen but how to they propose to break the impasse?

What's your theory on Boris Johnson's claimed "substantial progress" then?

Revocation.

Something puzzles me about this whole business. What, if anything, would be better for the ordinary person in the UK as a consequence of Brexit (any form of Brexit)? I get that some old fellas in the pub would feel a swelling in their national pride and that the Romanian workers in the UK would be replaced by Chinese workers but what tangible thing is the trade for loss of income, loss of healthcare, loss of some ability to travel and being personally a figure of fun in the rest of the world?

Bollocks, innit.

I don't have a theory but I go agree that negotiating in public is not a good idea.

I don't believe that there will be any significant loss of the ability to travel but if I was a plumber and I had lost my job, or my income had reduced, as a result of someone from another country undercutting me as they were prepared to live in a vehicle and send money back to their family where the cost of living was cheaper, I could see how I could be persuaded to vote to leave.

I don't believe the sovereignty issue is a major factor for most people as, in my experience, most people don't fully understand how the EU works. I also don't believe the doomsdayer's version of life in the UK post Brexit. The UK was OK pre-1992 and it will be OK post Brexit too.

I'm not sure someone so dimwitted as to think replacing the Polish car dweller with an Indian one would be of benefit could be bright enough to be a plumber.

The way forward is for Johnson to come out and say that he always knew Brexit was daft (and that's why he was initially a remainer) but being PM was important to him. He supported the idea knowing it was bad for the country but good for hum, now he's achieved his objective he doesn't need to pretend anymore.

I note that you think the UK will survive without the EU. I think that's debatable but, even if it's true, in what way would life be better for ordinary people once the initial cost of Brexiting is paid off? What's it all for?

I think that depends upon how you define ordinary people. I suspect that those on low income are the ones that were most affected by the lowering of their income referred to above and will also be those most affected by an increase in prices (if such an increase continues). I suspect that one massively outweighs the other but I am not going to argue about which is which.

Most don't work in mainland Europe so most won't be affected by their ability to work in Europe although I accept that some that had intended to retire there will find it more difficult to do so once Brexit happens which is not something I am convinced will actually happen.

Which is the more likely then, that you are mistaken about nothing having changed or that Boris is misleading everyone when he says he's made substantial progress.

I'm with you there.

I intended "ordinary people" to mean people who won't make fortunes shorting the pound so just about everyone except, perhaps, Jacob Rees Mogg and Joe Lewis. I suppose de-nationalized healthcare would be financially beneficial to some doctors who are not, themselves, in need of healthcare. There would be a few winners. As far as I can see though most leavers consciously choose to vote against their interests. I wonder what they think is it in for them. If it's just "kicking out the French" (or whichever nationality is out of fashion today) then there's no need to leave to do that. If it's a desire for un-iced kippers, again that could be achieved within the EU.

I don't think that many here understand what's happening.
All these arguments about no-deal against the national interest reflect a complete disconnect with the electorate, much as MPs think.
The referendum result confounded all those who thought the average voter too 'dimwitted' to know their own mind and are now doing all they can to change the result.
The problem they have is that an election will once again be asking the 'dimwitted' to choose.
I listened to MPs outside parliament today railing against Johnson, a man who for good or ill has stated his resolve to fulfill the referendum result, and I have to say that they came across as a group characterised by a patronising attitude of 'I know better than you'.
They'll get their election but if they carry on speaking down to, and ignoring the electorate then Johnson will very likely find himself back in charge afterwards.

Putting aside how one might categorise a group of voters, there's an enormous difference between choosing out or in the EU and simply voting how the country is run.
Back in charge?

What would be the benefit, to the man on the Clapham omnibus, of the UK leaving the EU?

Once again, I don't think you understand what's going on.
After three years of parliament ignoring the referendum result, and now actively preventing the first real attempt to act on it, the man on the Clapham Omnibus doesn't actually care about benefits or otherwise of leaving the EU, these are arguments he no longer cares about.
The Clapham Omnibus is now bursting at the seams with those who are straining at the bit to show parliament that when they voted Leave they meant it. It's become personal.

So the case for leaving is that the leavers want it and are prepared to massacre their metaphors to get it. There's no benefit beyond being able to say "see, I can cut my own nuts off". Aren't you leavers all a bit old for such a teenaged stance?