What a terribly odd view you have of how a Parliamentary representative democracy works.

By your view half the current cabinet would have been kicked out because they voted against Brexit earlier in the year (a manifesto commitment no less, upon which they were elected, unlike what the 21 were axed for). How peculiar that this doesn't appear to have been your stance then.

Just as pertinently, people who didn't vote for something which was government policy but adversely affected their constituents would also get the chop in your view. Like the current Prime Minister and the Heathrow airport runway votes.

There you go again "You can disagree and have your say but once the decision is made by the majority then surely you have to support that majority that's the democratic way."
Where were your (or the Tory cabinets) principles of democracy when Mrs May was the leader. Hypocrites all of them (and you).

As for Corbyn, he is leader of the second largest parliamentary party so not in a position to run the country BUT, if Boris were to resign and Corbyn could form a coalition to run the country, then why not.
If Tory MP's carry on defecting at their current rate then who knows what may happen.
I'm no spring chicken but, I certainly cant remember a time when the Prime Minister of the ruling party was begging for the opposition to agree to an election (mind you the rules were different back then).
Unless there really is a grand plan, Boris has made more of a balls of things than May and she, for all of her many faults, was a damn sight more honest.
Johnson wouldn't know what integrity was if a lorry load came over from the EU and dropped its load all over him. Although if it happened near a ditch, maybe we would all get our wishes at once.

There may be a late plot twist in the Brexit saga.
If the EU say "non" to a further extension, what happens then
On the basis that the EU couldnt force the current deal upon us, would that leave us with only a no deal exit ?

We could still pass May’s bill as the lesser of two evils.

Politically expedient as well.

I suspect if we get an initial extension, they’ll say it is the last. Then, following the election if we’re still not able to offer anything different, that’ll be the choice.

Such an interesting and infuriating level of solipsism going on with the hard Brexiteers at the moment - in that they are making furious logical contortions to justify the expulsion of rebel MP's who wouldn't support the plotting of Cummings and Johnson; but had no issue at all with the hard line ERG doing exactly the same thing to May - most of whom have now, as Soames, Heseltine and others have pointed out, moved into the cabinet and turned the Tory party into a hardline Brexit sect.

Equally irritating is the spin and bluster that is going on around Labour's refusal to support an instant GE; it's as plain as the nose on anyone's face why timing is important to prevent no deal, but so long as the chicken narrative, together with the lack of clarity narrative, is parroted in the media, that's the view that people are left with.

As it stands, for a group of people who claimed to want to restore the sovereignty of the UK HoP, they seem surprisingly sanguine about Machiavellian levels of skulduggery to deny it having a voice; and for those who bleat about MP's enacting the will of the people and the death of democracy - I would suggest that what's being played out in the HoP right now (until it was suspended) is a perfect reflection of our system of democracy, and proof positive that it *is* working exactly as intended - the country is split and factional on Brexit, as are MP's - what a surprise! For one party, even Labour, who seem to be required to act as one homogenous hive mind to be considered legitimate, to speak in a unified voice on this matter, would require significant numbers of MP's to lie, or ignore the national interest - and that would be a genuine subversion of parliamentary democracy.

I have no idea what will happen next - no doubt it will involve some unholy alliance between Johnson and Farage - but whatever happens, this will take generations to get over; all because David Cameron thought he could see off UKIP with a referendum he never expected to lose. The internecine battle over Europe that has played out within the Tory party for decades has come to a head, and reduced us to an international laughing stock in the process. We will be forever diminished on the world stage after this - demoted to a small, relatively insignificant island nation, with ideas above its station.

May was a disaster but if her position was the agreed majority within the Tory party it should have been supported - sadly I am not sure she had a majority for her vision of Brexit. Let's face she was much more of a dictator than Boris - the Tory manifesto was her and her two advisors, the 2017 campaign was all her doing and the Brexit negotiations were all her no discussions within the party on any of that.

So you actually think it would be OK for Corbyn to form a government and implement things like re-nationalisation without an election? really wow!!

To me all Johnson is trying to do is deliver Brexit - he knows he could never get it through parliament MP's have shown no appetite for a deal and no appetite for no deal so how does he deliver on the referendum.

Fortunately it would appear the notion of an impending recession has been overblown given July's growth figures. Time for a GE - perhaps this is more to do with why Labour don't want a GE - No deal Brexit is a convenient excuse - and you say Boris has no integrity!!

There are 7 possible types of Brexit –

No deal with the EU
1-page FTA
Complex FTA only in goods
Complex FTA mainly in goods (Canada)
Customs union (Turkey)
Complex bilaterals (Switzerland)
EFTA/EEA (Norway)

These all require the UK to leave the EU. The referendum didn’t make clear which of the seven options “leave” meant. Before the vote I recall Farage, Hannan and others often talk up Norwegian and Swiss options then post referendum say these “weren’t Brexit”.

Article 50 shouldn’t have been triggered until the type of Brexit wanted had been agreed in Parliament.

No party can pass ANY law without the majority of MP's voting for it, not even Corbyn.
In fairness, even when the Tories cam into power, they didn't have an overall majority but, you seem happy enough for them to team up with the DUP and "rule" over the country WOW.-( I dont remember that option being on any ballet paper or even being muted during the election campaign, do you ?).
Had Mrs May not got into bed with her Irish friends, Corbyn, if he thought he could muster a coalition with an overall majority could have tried to form a government and in that respect, little has changed.
In fact, you could argue that having sacked 21 of his own MP's and with it, his very slim majority, Boris shouldn't have the right to govern anyway.
Now, in minority government, he's is doing everything possible to force the population to accept something that Parliament has passed a law to forbid, not bad for the new party in favour of law and order, eh

If the government is happy to ride roughshod all over the law, then, why the hell should the populous be expected to stay within it.
As usual, two sets of rules. One for the lawmakers and one for the riff raff. It's a fecking joke.

From what i’ve read, the EU would be very wary of having another Swiss-style deal. May’s red lines rule out everything below Canada anyway, of course.

I can see why you’d want some flexibility in your negotiating position without being too tied to a single predetermined set of objectives that have been announced publicly. Although May herself clearly felt differently and chucked that away as she charged off in her own direction with not many feeling obliged or minded to follow.

May's red lines were not part of the referendum and shouldn't be our starting point now she has gone - the fact that she put them in place, guaranteeing a very hard form of Brexit, is the root of the trouble we find ourselves in. She could have approached it more moderately, forsaken some of the far right wing but found support from Labour. As the revised compromise version of her bill, which they are trying to revive, would probably have done.

All of which is a reminder that the only reason we're still in the EU is because people like Rees-Mogg and, for a time, Johnson himself, voted down Brexit bills which their party had agreed was party policy. But little bit of betrayal of leave voters and hypocrisy given their current stance doesn't seem to get mentioned by the Brexit ultras.

They probably shouldn’t, but unless Labour can cobble together some sort coalition (tough with Corbyn as leader and agreement not extending much further than no to no deal), they probably will.

May could have taken a more moderate line, but as it got more necessary after she lost the Tory majority, it also got more difficult because she’d also lost so much authority. From her perspective, Corbyn, Abbott and McDonnell probably inspire as much trust and fellow feeling as Johnson, Raab and Rees-Mogg do in me. The middle ground in UK politics, where a deal could have been done has been hollowed out.

Maybe the DUP will allow a Northern Ireland only backstop. If Johnson can bring any sort of vaguely credible deal back to parliament, it’ll put Labour in an invidious position.

The problem with staying in the single market and the customs union is that you are leaving but you are not really leaving. The single market allows for free movement of labour, at the time of the referendum this was a major concern for leave voters - not sure it is quite the issue it was. It also leaves the UK answerable to the ECJ which is a major issue to this day.

The customs union is a problem in Ireland - sacrificing the north seems a reasonable solution to me if we want to accept May's deal.

The problem is we were never going to get the best of both worlds and as such leaving with no deal initially seems the best solution. Both parties can then truly assess the impact and then negotiations can start from a position of actual happenings not "project fear".

Both parties want their cake and to eat it - the EU want our money and to exert control without UK influence and we want free trade but no contribution - irresistible force and immovable object.

I know some people like to claim that cutting one leg off will cause a terrible limp. But it's only if we have the courage to cut a leg off that we can see how bad that limp is. Then we'll be in a position to choose which prosthetic to use which probably won't be all that bad considering.

I'd check first that it was the leg causing the limp, because if not cutting the leg off wont solve it.
Sometimes you can blame the leg when in fact it's something else that's causing the pain and hurt your struggling with and blaming the leg and cutting it off might not solve it.
Oh and BTW
Whilst 17.4 million 3 years ago may want to have their leg cut off there were 16.8 plus 12m who didn't vote along with the extra million or so that are now eligible to have an opinion who werent back then, who are very much against having their leg cut off without knowing the full facts.
I'm more than happy now I have explored those facts with my decision 3 years ago not to cut it off but to have a 2nd opinion and would suggest it may be a good idea to ask those people again to confirm they actually want it cut off.
And the leg analogy downtown really work when (and I can only be honest here) I feel the vast majority of people voted to cut MY leg off without knowing what they know now.