Thread by @VMRConstancio

Could any British friend correct me in thinking that the UK PM still hopes to submit the present draft Agreement to a third vote?
1) If Parliament would vote today (very unlikely) for exit with no deal, she said that would become immediately Government policy.
2) If.... 1/n

2) If as expected, Parliament will refuse Brexit with no deal, that will not per se change either policy or the existent law stating March 29th as the exit date.
3) Parliament will then vote on Thursday whether it favours asking for a date extension... 3/n

4) If Parliament would vote (however illogically) against asking for an extension, that would justify submiting again to a vote the only existing deal.
5) If Parliament votes for the extension, then she said that it would have to choose among 3 alternatives: a)... 4/n

5) a) revoke activation of Article 50
b) convene a second referendum
c) vote for a different deal, specifying the general terms of that deal.
If, as it seems (am I wrong on this?), there is no majority for any of these choices, the impasse would justify a 3d WA vote... 5/n

Instead of making herself (and the Government) a choice among the alternative choices, interiorising that the WA is definitely refused, as it would be logical (but would split her Party), she hopes to let Parliament expose its own contradictions and fail to decide on a policy 6/n

7) This brinkmanship about the future of the country is amazing. For a different type of deal to have a majority, the Government would have to lead a negotiation with other parties and compromise. A permanent customs union of a Norway solution seem to be possibilities 7/n

If Government provides no leadership for an alternative solution and Parliament fails to agree on a policy, exit with no deal happens on the 29th, regardless of the toothless motion likely to be approved today against that outcome. Please tell me where I went wrong. 8/8

@threadreaderapp unroll