Same as the tories. Divided from top to bottom. I recall the majority of MPs are against Brexit- something like 70/30? I wonder whether that's fairly uniform across the main parties? I can't tell which of Con-Lab is more pro brexit...

Hence the overall shambles. Corbyn is pro-brexit, May against. So they're both representing the opposite opinion.

I agree, and movement will be over the backstop deal. Wasn't politics due to turn green in NI around 2025, thanks to the higher catholic breeding rate? IE the problem might solve itself in the not too far distant. This might have been a really good time for SF to drop the Westminster boycott.

Since May is hanging on to her red lines, I don't see how a real plan B can come about. I think No Brexit is a real option. And given that 70/30 ratio I quoted earlier it might all have been to plan... bog everything down for years then throw it in the bin.

But it did get me reading up on the Canada Deal thanks to a BBC link. CETA looks quite good. And i saw it specifically included improved reciprocity for professionals... but that's worth another post.

May can't hang on to her red lines, though - that's the problem she faces. Every other parliamentary party has either refused to enter discussions at all (Labour) or reported that in those discussions their own "red-line" position, if you will, is that the no-deal Brexit be taken off the table, a second referendum be on the table, and that delay of Article 50 implementation be the first order of business. So far, May has refused to move on these points: but she must soon realize that nothing will get through Parliament without these positions being adopted. And since Dominic Grieve's bill last week gives Parliament the final say on any "deal" that May brings to the House, it's clear that any such deal will be voted down again if it doesn't include provision for delay, referendum and nixing a no-deal Brexit.

May has played all her cards, had her bluff called, and lost the hand. She must now acknowledge that she does not, in fact, have an ace hidden up her sleeve, and should put up the ante that Parliament is demanding for the next round - if that's not stretching the analogy too far.

I anticipate an inconclusive referendum.

Depends on the question

She can't, but she is. Or at least on day one of three she is. This all seems a bit choreographed... I wonder what the end game is? Back everyone into such a tight corner that it ends up deal vs hard brexit, or just call the whole thing off?

SF has 7 MP's so the answer isn't there (surely they'd love a customs border down the irish sea?)

I'd buy off the Scots by promising another referendum, worded "stay in UK outside of EU, or leave UK and rejoin the EU". SNP has to take anything with a good chance of independence.

i don't understand why there wasn't a working party from all the different "parties"- surely it was never going to work if you didn't get the buy in from others. You are not telling me that all Labour party constituents voted to remain...

I believe you are reading too much into Grieve's procedural point last week. Most experts are saying that, while inconvenient, it would not prevent a no deal Brexit. Of course, another procedure may prevent a no deal Brexit. Time will tell.

Ironically Labour (for the workers) should probably be more pro-brexit than the Conservatives (pro business/ trade)...

The only way to prevent a no-deal brexit is to agree an alternative with the EU, which would include the delay option. So beyond Hard Brexit/ May Deal/ No Brexit, the only off the hself options are something like the Canada deal or the Norway deal. Im not sure exactly where they sit on the axis but I think the Canada Deal is between May's deal and a hard brexit?

THere's only one deal on the table as far as the EU is concerned, and that's the Withdrawal Agreement "negotiated" by May without any thought to whether she'd be able to get it through Parliament. From the EU side of the table, there are three very clear options: our deal, no deal, or cancel Brexit.

There is no incentive whatsoever for the EU to accept a Norway or Canada proposal from the UK. They'd be quite at liberty to say "no, thank you; you have the deal you brokered, take it or leave it. Let us know before March 29, if you please."

I think the incentive is in the EU realising that the brokered deal will never fly in Westminster, leaving a real risk of a hard brexit, which they do not want. I believe the Norway and Canada models were rejected on the UK side too (personally I don't think they'd fly either). So if it appears Westminster will agree to one of those... I think the EU would say "Alright then"

I didn't think the deal was a deal in the sense of a Canada/EU deal and that is was simple a transitional deal until the complete deal could be negotiated.

As I have said above, it appears to me that the EU is doing all it can to prevent Brexit and is being assisted in that by MPs that don't like the result of the referendum.

The EU is not doing "all it can" to prevent Brexit, utter bollocks. It is acting in its own interests as an economic bloc, and applying its well established trade rules (many of which were drawn up with the UK as a member). The only thing the EU is doing is refusing to let the UK have its cake and eat it too. It's funny how Brexiters are never far from bringing some emotional or conspiracy argument to bear on the situation.

Earlier in the process the EU offered a Norway style EEA relationship, but it was roundly dismissed by the immigration obsessed May. I think either Norway/Canada could be negotiated by the EU if Britain was open to it.

May's strategy from the start seems to have been to forge a compromise deal on her own terms, initially by shutting out any oversight, and now by running down the clock. It does seem that if the other parties cannot mobilise serious opposition we could fall into a No Deal by losing the game of Brexit chicken that May is orchestrating. It is a risk.

It has always been the case that the exit of the UK from the EU needs the formal passage in the UK parliament of the Withdrawal Agreement Implementation Bill. If such a Bill were to fail in the House, then "no-deal Brexit" becomes a reality if no other action is taken. However, Grieve's procedural motion has secured the House's ability to amend this Bill. This could become very significant indeed if May continues to ride roughshod over the opinion of the House and brings back a Withdrawal Agreement too similar to the one that was so roundly defeated earlier this week. An amendment to such a Bill that stops the process in its tracks - to allow time for a second referendum, for example - could very likely receive the support of a majority of MPs. That would leave the Government no option but to delay the Article 50 process (which the EU has already said would be acceptable in such circumstances) and potentially, if a second referendum were to indicate it's the will of the people, to halt the process altogether and forget all about leaving the EU.

I suspect this is now the most likely course of events. There's no way May can garner enough support for the existing Withdrawal Agreement, with all the Irish Backstop nonsense and "red line" issues that have plagued it from the start. I say again: she's had her bluff called, and must realize that her entire approach (going right back to her ridiculous "Brexit means Brexit" non-statements two years ago) has been found wanting.

I'm not sure about the detail of Grieve's amendment, but the hard Brexiters like JRM are contending that it isn't an impediment to withdrawal on 29 March? If the EU will only grant an A50 extension on a substantive issue like, a potential second referendum, there's a risk that Parliament can't agree a substantive issue and we fall into Brexit. That seems consistent with Corbyn's insistence that No Deal is formally removed from the process, if it wasn't a risk, he wouldn't be insisting on it?