-
Parliament wasn't bound by the red lines though, and never was. It could have proposed any alternative it liked, whether or not that alternative stuck to the government's red lines. Norway plus, Canada plus, EEA, EFTA, CU+SM, 2nd referendum, revoke A50, whatever. All those options were open to Parliament to identify as its preferred option, and they failed to agree on a single one of them.
We've had two round of indicative votes where Parliament has been given the opportunity to find an alternative it can collectively agree upon. In the second round of indicative votes two of the options were Ken Clarke's common market proposal and Nick Boles' Common Market 2.0 proposal (which I think was also in the first round). Neither of those proposals satisfied May's red lines, so it simply isn't right to claim that Parliament was hamstrung by May's red lines. It had a totally free hand to decide what alternative it wanted to propose, and failed to agree on any alternative proposal. Twice.
You are reading a single comment by @Brommers and its replies.
Click here to read the full conversation.
Brommers
I still blame the govt for that.
The red lines that were introduced meant that no consensus option was available. Parliament is unable to solve an impossible conundrum, the govt has to give some space to move or be reasonable and it did not.