I am a bit flummoxed.

[Workingman]

Our Mr Davis told parliament that it will get a vote on the final Brexit deal before the UK leaves the EU. He went on to add that it would not alter the fact that the UK was leaving the EU.

My take on this is that at some time, maybe the last hour, Davis will come back from Brussels with a deal. This deal, regardless of what it contains with respect to, well anything, will be put to MPs in parliament for them to accept or reject it.

It could be a mish-mash of the Norway cum Canada cum Switzerland deals or it could be something never before thought of in the history of the Universe. However, If MPs accept it, it is what we will get, regardless of whether it is what most of us want. If they reject it we get a "no deal", again, regardless of what the people want. It will not change the fact that we are out, leaving, history.

May is putting the date and time of our leaving the EU into law - UK law. Everything, including the transition / implementation period, negotiation strategies, length of time and rules and regs have to be agreed by both sides before then otherwise we are gone.

Davis is playing the game. He is making it look as though parliament has some sort of control over decision making when in truth it is the executive of 22 members who control the 67m of us. Come the day we will get what we have got.

Democracy eh?

[TheOstrich]

Well, the way I see it, democracy has already spoken. It was a straight referendum and we're leaving.

So Parliament will have a collective vote on the "final deal", to accept it or reject it - whatever it is.

If the deal is reasonable enough, balancing the exit bill, trade, Irish border arrangements, EU citizen rights concessions, so on, then fine - MPs will vote in favour of it. If an MP votes against a reasonable package, he better have a jolly good reason why not, because he's not going to thwart the stated will of the nation to leave.

If, however, the deal the EU offers is absolutely ruinous to the UK, then Parliament can agree that we simply "crash out". So if Barnier and Junkers insist in the next round of talks, for example, the exit bill is £100bn, Davis can say OK at the negotiating table, knowing that Parliament will, after debate and at the end of the day, quite correctly have the option of telling them where to stick it.

If anything, this move ought to concentrate European minds.

I think most Leavers just want out, and couldn't care less if it's a soft or hard exit. That's certainly my stance. I have no problem with a hard Brexit whatsoever.

[Suff]

Why be confused? This was 100% crystal clear from the beginning. You vote to leave and you leave. This is not a UK competency, this is an EU competency. 2 calendar years after the notification, the treaties cease to apply and the state which requested to leave has left.

That is the baseline. Hard Brexit. It is not in the control of the UK, only the control of the rEU27.

If you actually read the Treaty on European Union Article 50, it explains that the 2 year time limit is for the rEU and the leaving state to come to an agreement on how they will interact with each other post exit.

It is very clear that if no deal is reached before that date, then the leaving state exits and the treaties no longer apply.

The only defined alternative, in the Treaty, is that if the leaving state and the remaining EU states come to a unanimous agreement, the leaving date can be deferred for an unspecified period.

In terms of Davis handing a deal to the UK parliament and giving them an Accept/Reject vote on it; this is a consequence of the rest of the EU requiring a minimum of 6 months to ratify the deal through every parliament in the EU before being signed off in Brussels.

Again, not in the control of our negotiating team.

The press, the people who don’t want to leave, seem to be wilfully ignoring reality. Then making a big issue of it. Then blaming our negotiating team for something they have no control over.

The EU will negotiate to the point where they believe they have a deal which can be ratified by the 27 states. It will then be sent for ratification to the EU states and the UK. Just exactly as every EU directive has been pushed around the EU for the entire time we have been a member. This vote is not a vote for the UK parliament to discuss and amend the deal. This vote is the UK’s one and only chance to ratify the deal. They either want it or they do not.

If the press, the people and the MP’s in opposition to Brexit don’t understand that; it is their problem.

It is very simple. We are leaving. You can forget the EU27 voting to extend us, it won’t happen as they don’t trust us. So we have two years to determine how we exit. We have two choices.

1. Accede to everything the EU want and the Bexit escalator exits the EU building at the front door and we pay the price for a smooth exit.
2. Tell the EU to stuff it, the Brexit escalator exits the EU building at a window on the 22nd floor and we make ourselves a parachute big enough to ensure a soft landing at the bottom.

I didn’t think this was hard to understand.

Apparently I was wildly optimistic in that assessment.

[Workingman]

I am not flummoxed by the process, it is clear that we are leaving, deal or no deal, unless we, the UK, rescind A50. No politician or party would do that as it would be their end of days and bring riots to the streets.

The puzzle is why Davis and May have pulled these stunts at this particular time... internal party politics?

When Ossie says: "If anything, this move ought to concentrate European minds." that is similar to what I am reading in quite a few online comments. It is being seen as a smart move by Davis, but is it? The EU could not care less whether our parliament gets a vote or the date and time is set in our laws. Once the Brexit train crashes through the buffers on 29 March 2019 that's it, we've gone - vote or no vote.

[cromwell]

I understand less and less, Mr Fawlty!

So we are leaving. So Parliament wants a vote on the terms of our leaving. Why? What are they going to alter? If they say "No, that's not good enough", what are they expecting us to do, go back to the EU and ask them for a better deal? And what will the EU say to that I wonder?

[AliasAggers]

I'm beginning to wonder why we elect so many idiots into parliament.

It's putting me off democracy completely.

[Suff]

The date? Yes well that is a bit of theatre. For the vote, perhaps we need to go back and ask Mrs Miller. Remember the court ruling that May had to go to Parliament and request permission to trigger A 50. Remember that the Bill which enacted A 50 had a clause in it that Parliament would get a vote on the final deal??

This is nothing more than the government fulfilling the terms of it's own Bill to trigger A 50..

Nothing confusing about that at all.

[Workingman]

Remember that the Bill which enacted A 50 had a clause in it that Parliament would get a vote on the final deal??

It certainly did not

Two amendments to the Bill forced on the government by Gina Miller were twice passed in the HoL by huge majorities, but were defeated in the Commons on both readings.

On the Bill's final reading, in March this year, the first change, to guarantee the rights of EU citizens in the UK, was thrown out by 335 votes to 287 - a majority of 48.

The second amendment, designed to give Parliament a "meaningful" vote on the final deal, was defeated by 331 votes to 286 - a majority of 45.

The Lords then cleared the Bill with no more amendments. All that was then needed to invoke Article 50 was the Queen's "royal assent", which was given; there was never a need for a parliamentary vote on any final deal.

[Suff]

Hmmm, yes my fault memory.

Did May not, however, make a verbal commitment to a "meaningful" vote by Parliament?

Something most hard Brexit Tory MP's were unhappy about??

I know it is confusing when the government lives up to it's promises. It is not the fault of the government that the EU stance and article 50 mean that the only meaninful action Parliament can take is to veto the offer. Exactly the same vote that the EU parliament has.