Thread by @Usherwood

I'm sure someone else has explained this, but since several have asked me today, here's why May can't simply "remove no-deal" from the table for Corbyn:

1/

As you'll recall, Art.50 operates on a trigger-then-resolve approach: a member state notifies of its intention to leave the EU, which starts a 2-yr period, at the end of which the state leaves without a deal, unless otherwise jointly decided

2/

That 'otherwise' covers three options:
- the state and EU agree to extend the period;
- the state agrees a deal with the EU on terms of exit;
- the state decides not to leave.

3/

Those are the only three options possible instead of no-deal

4/

The first - extending the period - doesn't remove no-deal, but just delays its arrival, so that's not an option here

5/

The second - agree a deal with the EU - is what May worked to, but LAB (and others) voted on Tuesday that this deal (the Withdrawal Agt) wasn't acceptable, so that's presumably not an option

6/

The third - revocation - is in the government's gift, but Corbyn's public statements seem to suggest that the #EURef result must be honoured, so presumably this path isn't in line with his preferences (not to mention May's)

7/

Thus, to meet the condition of removing no-deal, May would either have to convince Parliament to accept the WA (in which case there's no need to consult with anyone), or do something neither she nor Corbyn say they want

8/

Since I'm not feeling generous today, I'll say that Corbyn understands enough to know this is the case, and so asked for it because he knew May couldn't accept, giving him the high ground (and avoiding him having to spell out his policy)

9/

In sum, more messing about by everyone as that clock ticks down to the one outcome that no one says they want

/end