UKH

Does yesterday's No Confidence in May's  Brexit ideas/approach, now inevitably mean cross party ideas must now be incorporated?

I think it does

and personally I think this is an improved Brexit option in the making.

I'm trying to compare this potential option to staying full member of EU. 

We might have to vote in referendum on these two options.

Not if it isn't in the party interest of those Westminster *****.

I doubt it. Nobody in Westminster can deliver the brexit that was sold so it's in Labour's interest not to get sucked into trying in earnest. We still face the same three way choice we have for months, May's deal, no deal, no brexit.

There are more sensible options and ways forward than this lunatic brinkmanship but for a variety of reasons: some bad luck, some lack of care and maintenance, some poor judgement by individuals our democracy has failed. Unless something radical changes we're just playing chicken until b-day.

No deal remains on the table quite simply because nobody knows for sure if May is bluffing, if she's actually willing to grasp the title of worst PM ever largely to prove a point. It's like the instructions she'll have written for submarine commanders: unknowable, the ultimate threat but pointless, in this case we're threatening to 'nuke' ourselves.

jk

Are  not the minority positions on Brexit eg WTO rule followers, now being squeezed out.The threat to these people is very real now that Parliament will head for an impasse and a consequential referendum which could lead to  their particular worst case scenario of staying fully in EU. 

May must see that as well as a real possibility . She wasn't in that position two weeks ago so she must now have lost confidence in herself by force of circumstance. She must be re-considering now.

Corbyn is in a stronger position, toe in the door for real now, to negotiate a soft Brexit.

I think it is all change.

Ever since the general election, Theresa has known that to get anything through parliament, she needs the support of at least two of the following; the ERG, moderate Conservatives, SNP or Labour. Throughout the subsequent two years she has consistently ignored Labour and sought to unite the conservative (and DUP) votes so I'm not quite as hopeful as you are. This is probably the right call for the survival of the Conservative party, but an absolute nightmare for the country as a whole. She is hopelessly unsuited to leading a minority government.

If we assume May is bluffing, that she won't no-deal by default and parliament never will by choice then oddly enough the only hope for the hardliners is a referendum. I think it will be politically near impossible to keep 'no-deal' off any ballot and much work has already been done whipping the public up against May's deal and for a 'clean exit'... it's very winnable for them.

Of course May may not be bluffing and even if she is the hardliners may be able to wrest control from her at the critical moment so we go over the cliff anyway whether she'd planned to stop or not.

There's no such thing, the public aren't buying what buisiness needs.

I hopes so but I don't think we're there yet. I think things will change, quite dramatically, the impasse can't last.

jk

The problem with the entire situation is that there is not a parliamentary majority in favour of anything.

The government keeps getting defeated because there are lots of things that Parliament has agreed it doesn't want but there isn't anything that it can agree it does want.

There is no majority in favour of a second referendum so I can't understand why so many people think it is inevitable. 

Hard brexiters are not being squeezed out. If parliament can't find a majority position for an alternative, we leave with no deal in 43 days. This is the only outcome that does not require a parliamentary majority in order for it to occur. It is the default position if Parliament can't find a majority in favour of an alternative outcome. There is no evidence that Parliament is closing in on any majority position.

We are playing chicken against disaster capitalists, liars and self-serving career politicians. Not smart. 

This was what logically had to happen 2 years ago in order to get any deal through parliament due to the wafer thin majority the government has. But logic has played no part in the process yet, I don't expect it to start now.

I wouldn't get your hopes up; Labour were whipped to abstain on extending A50 and Corbyn refused to support an amendment calling for a second vote. When is this negotiating going to happen? He appears to want Brexit to happen and to go badly, presumably so Labour stand a good chance of winning the next GE. Both Blue and Red teams have abandoned any pretence of doing what's best for the country.

Things can change. Lots of politicians don't want to be seen to be in favour but if the circumstances change such that support for a second referendum would not damage their chances of re election then I think many would seize the opportunity to vote for one.

I'm inclined to suspect that the current strength of the labour whip is just about the biggest obstacle to a sensible solution.

Sure. No hurry...

What has to happen to avoid a no deal brexit? I think there are three options:

(a) A deal. There's only one on offer, and it doesn't look good for it; to be fair, it's a pretty awful deal.

(b) Revoke article 50. I can't see a majority of MPs supporting that, though. And while it might be possible for the UK to unilaterally do this, it also might not.

(c) Delay article 50. This doesn't really solve anything, it just allows the current uncertainty to last a bit longer causing more damage. It would, as far as I'm aware, also require the EU to OK it, and I can't see why they'd want to prolong things unless there was a very clear plan for what the extra time was to be used for, and that it would be likely to make something positive happen.

I think (b) and (c) would have to be approved in the House of Commons, then - what? Passed to the Lords, then back again for final approval? I'm not sure of the process, what all actually has to happen? I don't think it can be as easy as just a vote in the Commons and job done (even forgetting that the EU would probably need to have a say too). How long would these take, I wonder, and what all could the hard brexiteers do to sabotage the different stages? The real deadline may have already passed; I'm pretty sure it isn't 29th March, anyway.

She's not called the maybot for no reason. There are several times in the last few months when cross-party soft brexit options have seemed inevitable but the maybot still hasn't shown any sign of going for them. I think that's mainly for two reasons. 1. She's the maybot and programmed herself to do her own thing, come what 'may', from the moment she uttered the fateful words: 'Brexit means Brexit'. 2. She's determined to hold her party together, whatever that does for the country and politics in this country.

She appears to have convinced herself that she can bring the ERG round and thereby get a conservative majority for a deal, rather than doing the obvious thing and seeking a centre ground majority. She wants to do that mainly because she doesn't think a Customs Union is what Brexit means but also because she knows that the blue rinse life blood of the party are possibly even more hardline on the issue that the ERG. Most of them probably see the likes of Soubry and Clarke as major league sellouts.

Parliament is clearly going to have its work cut out to take control of things and she will clearly do everything she can to avoid them doing so. The rest of the cabinet are now gutless bystanders (apart from the brexiteers who continue to egg her on). Nothing is inevitable.

That may be the case and it has damaged the process throughout that the official opposition hasn't been able to present a united front but, whatever you may say about Labour, they aren't the government. Corbyn is clearly at odds with many of his own MPs but he is really caught on the horns of the same dilemma as TM. The problem is, the more any of them go on about enacting the will of the people, the more they box themselves into dangerous places. But we're well past that now.

We do not know its the will of the people. It WAS, two years ago at the referendum. Now pros and cons are far more apparent and opinions may well have changed. With no second referendum Brexit of any sort could be AGAINST the wishes of the current majority (I believe some opinion polls suggest this).
 What a travesty of democracy on an issue of major importance. Our spineless politicians know this well and mention "the Brexit we votED for" (past tense),  "supporting the result of the Referendum" (2+ years ago). They cannot say "the Brexit the majority want" as they don't know this.
 Incidentally I, and I'm sure many other Remainers, would completely accept a second result for Brexit.
Boring rant over. Apologies.

No apology required; I'm with you all the way, almost. I should have put "will of the people" in quotes. It's become a joke.

I would slightly take issue on the issue of spineless politicians, mind. I understand that that is how they may be drawn by many but I do believe that a lot of them are genuinely struggling with the issue. The problem is that they've been put in an impossible position by call me dave. And now the maybot is doing her damnedest to ensure that they don't have their say, when our system relies on them trying to do their job and have their say on our behalf. Brexit should always be held us an argument against plebiscites, not a failure of parliamentary democracy (although it's true that our particular first past the post interpretation, isn't helping us much here, at the moment). Having said all that, if I'd been on the winning side I'd probably have been telling the losers to stop whinging.

Agreed, provided that it was decisive enough. A quite marginal result like 52/48 isn't nearly enough for a major constitutional change, as most wise western democracies know (and would never have allowed).

The ECJ has already ruled that the UK can unilaterally revoke article 50:

https://ukandeu.ac.uk/revoking-article-50-after-the-ecjs-ruling/

On 4 December 2018, the ECJ’s Advocate General gave his opinion that Article 50 is revocable and consequently that the UK could change its mind before any Exit Day. The ECJ agreed with the Advocate General in its ruling, interpreting Article 50 in accordance with the wider EU treaties and their purpose, the origin of Article 50, settled case law, and by analogy to the principles of public international law. It held that revocation, like notification, is an act of state sovereignty and must be possible because no member state can be ejected from the EU against its will.

The ECJ noted that the conditions on any revocation would be the same as those stated in Article 50 for the original notification. First, the decision must be taken in accordance with the member state’s constitutional requirements. Secondly, the decision must be notified to the Council in writing thereafter.

However, the bit about the member state's constitutional requirements could be an issue - but only because it's pretty unclear what the requirements of the UK constitution might be to make such a decision legitimate.  But that's not something the EU or the ECJ can rule on - it's something that can only be sorted out within the UK.  And if it came to that, they'd pretty much have to take our word for it.  (But as you say, the obvious legitimate route - ie parliament agreeing to do it, like they did with triggering the article in the first place - is unlikely to happen.  The only likely way for it to happen would be based on the outcome of another referendum.)

The 'constitutional requirements' condition probably also means that the UK can't simply revoke article 50 with the clear intention of triggering it again shortly afterwards, in the event that the EU were to refuse a request to allow an extension.

I think, given the propensity of Mrs May for kicking the ball down the road, that the delay to the Article 50 departure date might become government policy unless by some miracle (and betrayal of parliamentary responsibility) the ‘deal’ is approved by Parliament.

This is where it becomes sticky because the EU have made noises to the effect that they will only agree to an extension if it’s done for good reason, which could mean ‘sort out a majority in parliament’ or propose some other way out of the log-jam. The EU should not attempt to influence our parliamentary processes. They should not dictate what we do next. But they have the power to dictate now. That is because of our deficit of agency and not their surplus of it.

I think perhaps they’d like to see a people’s vote but cannot mention it.

I think it'll go to the wire.

Only a small minority in the hard right of the tory party want no deal. The rest will, at the last minute, when all other options have been exhausted, will "reluctantly" vote for a Peoples Vote between May's deal and Remain while protesting bitterly that they had no option.

I think you're very optimistic. I now fear that we're going to see the worst possible scenario: hard Brexit/no deal, and huge economic collapse. The only consolation then will be that none of the Brexiters will be able to twist anything round and blame the EU or the Remainers in any way, because they would have got exactly what they want. So they will have to own it 100% if it goes completely tits up.

I wish I knew how their minds work. A previous post above:

This comment of mine had two Likes and one Dislike. The latter is very puzzling. Clearly a Brexiter? But that would mean that the disliker thinks a 52/48 referendum result in favour of Remain would be acceptable. Yet I'm sure they would be the first to protest that such a result was undemocratic. But then that would completely undermine their present position.

Of course, if a second referendum was upwards of 53% in favour of Remain, their logical position would be completely demolished.

One thing that amazes me is how the proven referendum illegalities - the campaign overspending to propagate lies - seems to have been whitewashed from public discourse. At best, when it's mentioned, we get some lame false comparison with 'suspicions of wrongdoing' or some such on the Remain side.

If a referendum has been proven not to have been run to a satisfactory legal standard, even a technically advisory one, then surely its result cannot be held up as having been a reliable indicator of public opinion.

Edit: Imagine this had been a Presidential election in an unstable African state; the incumbent held onto the Presidency by a narrow margin but the courts ruled that significant illegal practices had taken place by the President's campaign during the ballot. How legitimate would that continuing Presidency be in the eyes of western commentators?

It would be directly proportional to their value of natural resources. Zimbabwe - acceptable, Venezuela - unacceptable. 

We mustn’t forget that no deal hard Brexit is the default status. At this time Parliament can only overturn this by passing legislation. The fastest bill ever to pass took 21 working days although I think it could be reduced to 14 days with no amendments and same-day second and third readings. This means, with Saturday sittings, roughly two a half weeks to go is the deadline.

Once this deadline has passed May becomes, in effect, a dictator. She is the only one who can stop a hard by revoking Article 50. She wants her deal to pass so she needs to convince parliament and the EU she’s prepared to let no deal happen. She also has to convince the ERG she’s prepared to revoke A50. She’s sowing the seeds of confusion in cabinet by double briefing, obfuscation and stony silence so no one really knows what will happen. In the end she’ll get something from the EU and Parliament will capitulate.

It’s brinkmanship of the highest order. 

It is a three way discussion now as Corbyn is going to Eu next week individually and Eu has intimated that Corbyn has a better solution to back stop. Actually it is a 4 way discussion cause Ireland is liaising with Eu and UK.

Interesting to see if the Eu can subtly influence  our sovereign process  without actually intervening. Whether it will be effective  to break impasse????

Dominic Grieve had and may again put an amendment to shift the executive to the legislature for a temporary  length of time to deal with the  singular issue of Brexit. So May cannot become a dictator by default of process and the most minority position dominate. So there is a way out there in our democratic procedures.

Our democratic procedures are really being put to the test.....but the argument for democracy over dictatorship is it can deal effectively with crisis and that is why it is preferable as a system. Other systems would disintegrate into civil war under this sort of duress.

sad to see some losing confidence in this system. I am still hopeful

See my post above: https://www.ukhillwalking.com/forums/off_belay/brexit_cross_-party_negotiated_....  The ECJ caveated its ruling that the UK could unilaterally revoke Article 50 by requiring that: "the decision must be taken in accordance with the member state’s constitutional requirements."  The PM acting as a "dictator" (invoking Henry VII powers?) could be argued not to meet that criterion if the EU felt inclined to reject a UK revocation of Article 50, or if the hard-line Brexiters wanted to challenge its legitimacy.

Brinksmanship it may be but it seems to be brinkmanship which involves angels-dancing-on-the-head-of-a-pin type arguments.  Those types of argument are typically are never resolved to the satisfaction of all parties - certainly not in the sort of timescale left before 29th March - which is why the risk of no deal is extremely high.

He has no authority, it is just a stunt as far as I can tell because he holds no consistent position himself and can’t effectively whip his own party.

They should not try to do this, and I don’t think they are. It is against the principle of sovereign authority that is enshrined in EU law (and ignored and misrepresented in Brexit arguments). I see no evidence that the EU negotiators have applied pressure other than to gain clarity from the U.K. That has clearly proved very difficult to obtain.

This approach has been consistently rejected by parliamentary vote. The only majorities so far obtained are agains may’s deal, for fantasy deals and for woolly non binding aspirations. It’s now really too late to allow this process to be played out.

There is a very real chance that we will leave with no deal. If that happens then our democratic and parliamentary procedures will have failed. A deal that was defeated by 230 votes might still pass even though there seems little chance it will have changed ina ny meaningful sense. That also would be a failure of parliament.

Good luck with that.

Damage has been done.

There is an article in the independent laying out a route forward to an inevitable referendum to get over impasse.  It's entitled"a final say could be on the horizon" as there is  no deal that can be passed in Parliament. 

Looking at the procedure it predicts,  it raised a basic question. The Last definition of the Deal.And the one to be put on referendum ballot paper

My idea of cross party involvement to define the Deal does not seem a stunt . May's approach has been dismissed. Corbyn must now have a legitimate role in the deal's definition. Hence his visit to EU.

May could just say, well nothing will get through parliament and remain a loner, peddling current version. But Corbyn would have leverage to say, well it's going to the people anyway and we both support not being full members of Eu, let's get together and form some extras to this deal. The incentive for her to join him would be huge because, in a referendum her deal as it stands would't get public support who now she has  now to court.

Corbyn uses the referendum card late and judiciously to twist her arm . He satisfies his party unity and reforms the deal at the same time. That is why he is not quite yet talking of a referendum. He is timing it to have maximum effect- on May.

I think you're giving Corbyn way too much credit. He just wants out and the chance to lose a General Election.

In a “May Deal vs no Brexit” plebiscite, which is one of the most likely referendum options (though I don’t think we will have a 2nd ref) I’m pretty sure the former has a good chance of winning.

I think you're right - if he has a clear, achievable objective and a considered plan to achieve it, then it will be for the first time in his entire frigging life.

Come what may, the Tory party will regroup and continue to hold power on behalf of the better off, because that is why it exists. Between them, Ed Miliband and Jeremy Corbyn may well have destroyed the Labour party as a viable party of government for my lifetime.

I'm sorry, but Corbyn's behaviour all points at pro-Brexit. Depress yourself with this one: http://www.private-eye.co.uk/hp-sauce

Yes, I agree Corbyn is Brexit. But he will be looking for the"cake and eating it" scenario - the customs union and a curb on free movement of people. The Eu is the sticking point with their red lines on all 4 pillars. But Should Corbyn twist May to join forces with him, as a combined unit they may be very well be able to have the customs unionof some sort with a curb to free movement of people.  Corbyn is in a stronger role, May is now weakened fatally in her position. From their point of "Brexit" viewpoint, it makes sense to join up.

Referendum then is this Deal, versus Full EU membership.

And if the Eu thinks the result is a foregone conclusion-like they did before- they are delusional.

This is how I see it playing out. I don't think either May or Corbyn see a Parliamentary majority for anything. So both lean on the 2016 will of the people thing. Corbyn is disguising personally but he will be cleaver enough to keep the party together by giving those Labour party memebers who want it  a Referendum to satisfy. From a party political piont of view he is crafty- he'll keep his party together. May's will split. 

You're making the mistake in assuming May wants to Brexit. What she really wants is to keep the Tory party together and in power. Her best hope of that is not brexiting but being able to claim it was the people's choice to u-turn.

She's in a hopeless position now. She's got two choices for her No deal or Corbyn. The Unity of her party has gone already.She can't go for No deal cause deep down she doesn't believe in WTO and most of all Parliament won't allow it.

She didn't attend Parliament on the last amendment votes because she is retaining a separation from the Hard Brexiteers cause she has to work with Corbyn. She is going to try and keep the illusion of a conservative party unity by not butting up to the different views and exposing her own party's hopeless division. It is for our perception as the electorate. Crafty too.

It's the name of the game now of party perception of unity on both sides.We can see through it.

But as an electorate the referendum seems inevitably coming our way. And that transcends everything.

Yes that is depressing to read. However, within the next few weeks he has to keep his whole party, all branches, on board. In a way he is compelled by the whole labour party on this particular issue cause he needs them. In future, his views may make him unpalatable but for now his own party will maintain the status quo within the Labour Party. This is certainly his last chance as a Labour leader and he knows it. May chucked the leadership anyway!! What will replace her is chronic.

Sorry, I think she does want to Brexit in some form. She wants it through even in a referendum.

To continue, I think we are so focussed on the No Deal that something is being missed, focus on what will eventually end up on a referendum ballot paper. 

I'm afraid I believe the electorate  is blandly interested in ticking  any box for exiting the Eu and Remainers are deluded that a referendum automatically means Full EU memebership with a massive majority. I don't think the latter is true. Therefore the Deal is of upmost importance to define right now, because I think the Brexit vote will win again and I would prefer to see a softer Brexit with more checks than May's current deal.

Do you have any objective justification for that, since polls would appear to suggest a continuing shift towards remain?

The polls suggested remain at the last referendum.

polls are  one aspect but we've the psychology of being effectively Brexit mentality to 2 years and that is harder to undo

plus no discussion of the EU full membership, just focus on Brexit. 

Inevitable overstates it. Parliament as it stands needs new information, either to narrow down the options they still believe are available or to choose between those that really are. If we get to choosing but they still can't (understandably, the electorate expects milk and honey from thier only bad options) then they will need new consent from the public, this could come by an election but with the parties each split on the best way forward it is unlikely to provide a clear mandate and a stable government. It could com from something like a representative peoples forum but this is an unfamiliar concept and to introduce it now into such a venomous debate would seem unwise. That leaves us with the old familiar referendum, it got us into this mess, it can get us into the next phase of it and with the franchise unchanged it reduces the risk of ongoing attacks on the result's legitimacy (as we would doubtless see were this question put to a limited forum).

We may not yet get to the choosing between available options, our government and parliament is badly enough broken by this that we may well crash out by accident or to appease a tiny group of Conservative association members (who will likely not forgive the government the consequences, currently poll strongly for no-deal and realistically have nowhere to go electorally anyway so appeasing them by doing harm makes some sense to a Conservative PM). We may also see parliament blackmailed into voting against the national interest with catastrophic consequences for our democracy.

Piss poor statesmanship and a complete failure to manage public expectation over brexit has left us with no good choices but it would be a mistake to gloomily conclude they are all equally bad.

Of the realistically deliverable options a withdrawal deal that does limited economic harm which the public has given explicit consent for does the least harm in the long run. Perhaps as Ken Clark proposes this consent should really be sought in 3-4-5 years time when our future arrangements are negotiated but the uncertainty will cripple our economy and the risk of us being back here some years down the line, looking for ways to avoid hard choices is unappealing.

The process has been and still is logical from a certain perspective, its just that your priorities (quite reasonably!) don't align with the PM's.

jk

I'm a remainer in favour of a referendum as the least worst democratic way forward. I'm not complacent or hopeful, I think it will most likely from a 3-way (Remain as is, May's WA, No-deal) choice deliver a no-deal result. If that's what people ask for it is what they should get, we need to choose our future, especially so where that future is going to be very hard.

jk

Like you I don't think a referendum is particularly likely especially given the pressures on MPs from Tory constituency party members and the Labour leadership, IMHO effectively putting party above people.
If there was a referendum I think there should be something like a WTO/May/Remain choice but with a second preference on the ballot paper to be brought into action for the voters whose choice came last (alternatively a second vote between the top two). This might help avoid some tactical voting. Thus there would be at least an absolute majority for the final outcome.
I am a remainer but I still think there would be quite a high likelihood of a no deal leave. This I would at least be more happy to accept, knowing it was a current majority decision, not made two years ago when we were not so aware the implications and had no knowledge of what a deal would actually entail (largely due to poor and misleading information from both sides).

Well, does this Labour split mean at least some MPs have no Labour Party pressure atall on a referendum and it opens up the possibility of a referendum amendment even more.

Probably, but they are going to have to be bloody quick about it.......

......and obviously will definitely require delay in Brexit! EU presumably amenable though.

The EU have said right from the beginning, and up to and including the Tusk "special place" speech that they would welcome the cancellation of brexit.

That may well be but there won’t be another referendum and unless there’s a major constitutional change, like for example a shed load of Labour and Conservative MPs suddenly leave their party and form another one, Brexit won’t suddenly be cancelled. 

Sadly, I have to agree. looking like T May has hidden the stable bolt until the horse is out of sight........

Looks like a shed load of Mps are leaving their parties to represent a second referendum option.

But that still leaves what will be on this ballot paper as Brexit

I think it is preferable that it is not May's deal with Tory definitions but Corbyn's and her's including an idea of customs union . If he did join with May he may well get  customs union idea  with curtailment of freedom of movement. I  still think the country could vote Brexit, no foregone conclusion  for full EU memebership and a combined better deal is the best of those options. otherwise vote comes and go and Bexit wins and May's deal shuffles it's way chaotically into play. No end to it. It needs sorting now- type of trade deals etc,, isolating Corbyn is actually a bad mistake at the moment as regards Bexit.

Yvette Cooper will win amendment to extend deadline of March 30th for all these reasons.

EU misjudges again and sees these defections as indications the UK will overwhelmingly vote to remain. They get it so wrong.....

There won’t be another referendum. There’s no time and the EU won’t stop Brexit just for a referendum.

The only option is another vote of no confidence in the Government and they only need 13 MPs to leave the Conservatives and they lose their working majority. That changes things considerably in people’s minds. 

MPs didn’t go against the Conservatives as they didn’t want to lose their seats. A credible middle party with a likelihood of keeping their seat at the next GE... That’s a whole different ball game. 

Next week possible scenario.

May's deal fails,

amendment to delay article 50 wins,

amendment to take no deal off table wins,

amendment for exploration of alternative deal involving customs union wins with a referendum as well on that deal- wins { new TIG group essential to get this through with referendum condition}

May forced together with Corbyn.

Maybe another amendment added to have Parliament take over the process to avoid a general elections and no confidences which at this stage could  be destabilizing and look at alternative  Softer Brexit Deal. This wins

??????????

Just had a thought about "No Deal", Article 50 etc.

We've always had the option of walking away at a moment's notice from any of our international treaties. After all Trump does it.. What the Leavers want is for that to have no consequences. Any of us could walk out of a job, a marriage,  a restaurant  anything, but we wouldn't expect to still get paid, get our socks washed, ever get served again etc

A crash out Brexit / clean Brexit has always been available. But for that to be nice has never been on the table  

I’m still waiting for someone, somewhere, anyone, anywhere to explain to me how the EU suddenly change their tune and agree a delay. Barnier last week was getting very frustrated with our lack of understanding. 

Take the deal or crash out on March 29th. 

Why would the EU extend it, there are no reasons to extend it. Just because we want to extend it? They’ve already said no, they want a real reason, kicking the can down the road, or more time to convince politicians, are not real reasons. 

Why do we keep hearing people say delay Brexit. It’s not going to happen without a very strong case. 

The only conceivable case I can see is one in which the extension is predicated on a People's Vote, so I think that is what will happen, as May's deal seems pretty unlikely to be approved so the default option otherwise would be Worst Trade Option rules. That gives the EU a possible positive outcome incentive to allow the extension, if it turns out that the UK population choose to remain.

Edit: 2 minutes in and I already have a disliker who chose not to bother explaining what they don't like about this post. Is it simply that it suggests a possible outcome that wouldn't be to your liking? Or do you have an actual argument to present?

They’ve already said they won’t extend it for another referendum as that would just be kicking the can down the road.

They need something tangible to change their mind. 

All the polls suggested the first vote would be remain. No one believes polls. 

Do you have a source for that?

The polls I recall suggested a narrow win for Remain, but with error bars that often extended to give Leave a significant chance too. If you know anything about statistics, you'll agree that such polls were proved correct, i.e. the result was within the predicted range of outcomes. However, analysis since the referendum suggests that the polling in the days before the referendum actually predicted Leave, rather than just suggesting there was a significant chance of it happening. See https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2016-brexit-watch/

This last minute change of public opinion is often explained by the massive and illegally funded Facebook campaign of targeted misinformation implemented through Cambridge Analytica and others at exactly that time. Whether you choose to accept such an explanation probably depends on whether you want it to have been true.

Edit: Since the referendum, polls have slowly but consistently moved in the direction of Remain - see https://whatukthinks.org/eu/questions/in-highsight-do-you-think-britain-was... - Accept this trend or seek to deny/ignore it, but remember that, even if there were good reasons why polls at the time of the referendum were underestimating support for Leave, the same reasons will not explain a long-term and continuing downward trend in Leave support.

Perhaps the only explanation for that downward trend of Leave support can be explained by the gradual exposure of the detail of a Leave scenario.

That is why, I support , in principle, a second referendum, irrespective of a vote in 2016. maybe this idea, rather than just supporting a referendum vote to sort an impasse, divides some MPs from their party as this view is represented nowhere by main parties, including SNP who also don't really like the idea of examining the detail should an independence vote occur. It is the simple lack of respect for the electorate's intelligences I find  this accountability in principle staggeringly undermined in our current political two party first past post system and maybe a more PR system would kick up smaller parties able to represent subtitles like this and coalesce to keep the bigger parties accountable to us!

This is probably where this posting crosses over with the posting "Spliters"