-
Parliament could have said what it wanted instead of May's deal. It had the opportunity to do so, without being bound by May's red lines. It failed to do so, because MPs couldn't agree on an alternative. Twice. Parliament has been very good at turning down May's deal, but spectacularly poor at agreeing on an alternative.
Brommers-
Parliament could have said what it wanted instead of May's deal. It had the opportunity to do so, without being bound by May's red lines.
They were whipped votes. Too many spineless careerists toed the line. (Or to be very, very charitable - thought that supporting the government would result in a deal eventually).
-
Parliament could have said what it wanted instead of May's deal. It had the opportunity to do so, without being bound by May's red lines. It failed to do so, because MPs couldn't agree on an alternative. Twice. Parliament has been very good at turning down May's deal, but spectacularly poor at agreeing on an alternative.
That's because any actual deal would need to acknowledge the tradeoffs - and no MP has yet been willing to do so.
villa-ru
Dammit
May offered them the exact same deal three times and refused any and all meaningful alterations to it because red lines. In that circumstance, what can parliament do apart from repeat the same answer?