• With a rapid deadline of 29 March and no consensus in Britain on an agreement, Parliament will vote around 17:00. Thursday on the opportunity to reject the planned departure date for the country from the European Union.
• Legislators have twice rejected the withdrawal contract proposed by Prime Minister Theresa May with sensational margins. Wednesday they surrounded her further by passing a measure against any attempt to leave without an agreement.
• Ms. May remains in power but is seriously compromised. Many conservatives supported the anti-deal deal against his wishes, and several members of his cabinet refused to vote against, leading to speculation that he lost control of his party and the trial.
Britain seeks to gain time
After months of bravado and grandeur, of threats and stabs in political backs, the Parliament is paralyzed, which means that lawmakers are now able to try to stop the ; clock before the March 29 deadline. Parliament will return Thursday for a third consecutive day of Brexit voting, and it is widely assumed that lawmakers will support a measure to look for a delay.
But if the vote for a postponement postpones the deadline, it also creates new problems  Firstly, any delay would require the approval of the other 27 member states of the European Union. And the big question is what kind of delay would be granted, and what would it accomplish.
Many experts say that the European Union is likely to grant an extension, even if how long it would last is less certain. Some Brexit advocates fear that extending the deadline too far in the future may mean that the departure never happens. But a short delay would bring his problems.
The elections for the European Parliament should begin on May 23, so if the deadline is postponed beyond that date, Britain will be required to elect European legislators, even if it has tried to finalize its departure from the blockade. Awakward.
Furthermore, it took more than two years for Mrs. May's government to negotiate its agreement with Brussels. If a majority emerges in some way for a new exit agreement, such a proposal should be negotiated with Brussels, and nobody thinks that a new agreement could be completed by the end of May, assuming that Brussels could even play ball.
For now, the European Union, despite some changes at the beginning of this week, has basically told Britain that its offer is take-it-or-leave-it. Many European leaders have suggested that Britain would need to explain what it should have done differently – and how the new plan would have approved Parliament – before granting an extension.
And this points to a more fundamental issue: British lawmakers have said that opposing departure without an agreement, a prospect they say could cause catastrophic damage to the economy, chaos in ports and a shortage of food and medicine . But unless they actually vote for an agreement, it is still what is expected to happen. In itself an extension would only change the date of the showdown
Lawmakers will take control
Four amendments will be voted after Thursday's debate, including one that could actually take control of the Brexit process from the First Minister Theresa May, which allows Parliament to consider alternatives to its plan, and another call for time to hold a second referendum.
The one to watch was proposed by Hilary Benn, an opponent of the Labor party and former minister, with the support of some senior conservatives. He will insist that lawmakers set aside next Wednesday a series of swift votes on several levels, including those that maintain closer ties to the blockade, to determine which of them have the best chance of attracting a parliamentary majority.
the so-called indicative votes will take place the day before Ms. May is scheduled to attend a summit of EU leaders, and – if legislators ask for it – request a postponement of Brexit.
C & # 39; is another amendment that calls for the Brexit extension process to allow Parliament to find the majority for a different approach, but is less likely to pass because it was officially proposed by the Labor opposition party .
Also in the mix is an amendment by Sarah Wollaston, an independent legislator, who asks for an extension to ask for time for a second referendum, even if it is not expected to command a majority.
And another amendment by a Labor lawmaker, Chris Bryant, discusses that Mrs. May should not be allowed to re-submit her agreement to the House of Commons
. This was designed to try to destroy Ms. May's plans to return with her unpopular plan to Parliament for the third time next week, before Parliament could potentially have a chance to consider alternatives.
The selection of the amendments is the task of the speaker, John Bercow, who infuriated the extremists of Brexit by declining to plan a vote on an amendment intended to exclude the possibility of a second referendum.
Can fight to stay in office
Prime Minister Theresa May insisted that the possibility of a Brexit without agreement should remain an option, arguing that removing him from his negotiating arsenal would deny his influence in dealing with the European Union.
However, when Parliament met on Wednesday, it supported the motion asking lawmakers to declare that they are against leaving the European Union on 29 March unless an agreement was signed  Parliament he took a step further and voted against exiting the block without agreement under any circumstances, at any time – a harsh rebuke to Mrs. May.
It was not the first time that Mrs. May's party members have mistrust, and there is no reason to suspect that it will be the last.
On Tuesday the legislators decisively rejected, 391 votes against 242, the agreement that Mrs. May had negotiated with the officials of the European Union, including the last minute modifications intended to persuade recalcitrant and pro-Brexit legislators who were worried that Britain might be subjected indefinitely to some of the economic rules of the blockade.
Speaks to the uphill struggle of Mrs. May that there was a thin coating of silver in that 149- defeat of the vote: it was less emphatic than the first vote on the agreement, in January, which it lost 230 votes, a surprising margin in a 650-seat Parliament.
British governments rarely lose significant parliamentary votes, but Ms. May has survived some Brexit-related setbacks – and a flow of government resignations – that would ordinarily mean the end of the prime minister's mandate.
But the whispers of a strategy are turning out to be true
Back in February, a television journalist sitting in The hotel bar in Brussels overheard the Brexit chief negotiator, Olly Robbins, talking to the colleagues. The journalist picked up what he described as an "extraordinary" admission, one that flew in the face of Prime Minister Theresa May's public promises.
The plan, said Robbins, was for the government in March to present Brexit advocates without compromise with an unpleasant choice: to vote for Mr May's revised agreement, or to endure a significant delay in the process.
The political class of Great Britain was instantly in turmoil. The foreign secretary denied that such a plan existed. Until then, Ms. May had insisted that Britain was leaving the European Union on March 29 and that any delay was unthinkable.
Good, fast forward to today, and Mrs. May is doing exactly as expected by Mr. Robbins. For all the chaos and humiliation of the last two days, parts of Mrs. May's strategy seem to be perfectly in line.
Lady. He could say that the members of Parliament could support his modified program in a third vote and leave the block after a brief technical extension. Or they could challenge her again and be forced to wait "a much longer extension."
Trump talks about commercial potential
Prospects for a trade agreement between Britain and the United States after Brexit have been fluctuating for two years
Before President Trump took office, he said that a pact could be reached "very quickly". But in a published interview while visiting Britain in July, he declared Prime Minister Theresa May's proposals too favorable for the Europa Union, and in November warned that her plan meant that Britain "may not be able to trade with us."
On Thursday, Mr. Trump played a more optimistic note on Twitter.
Mr. Trump is allied with some of the most vocal supporters of Brexit, like Nigel Farage. And Brexit supporters have negotiated a trade agreement with the United States as one of the prizes to leave the European Union.
But others fear that a trade deal may force Britain to reduce its food and agricultural standards to allow American products, citing chlorine-washed chicken and hormone-fed beef. Opponents of Brexit have also warned that an agreement would give American companies too much energy within the British health system, after US negotiators pushed for full access to pharmaceutical companies.
A potential surprise lurks in the Parliament's rulebook
on Wednesday the House of Commons stated that the speaker, John Bercow, technically has the right to prevent the government from bringing the agreement back withdrawal, twice rejected by majority majorities, for a third vote.
The legal basis for this proposal is found in the book of rules of the Parliament, the work of a diligent 19th century employee named Erskine May. On page 397, the regulation says that the motions or amendments that are "the same, in substance, as an issue that was decided during a session cannot be carried out during that same session."
In the swirl of constitutional nerdiness that followed, it emerged that the last employee of the House of Commons had thrown cold water on this idea back in October.
"That rule is not designed to obstruct the will of the House", said the employee, Sir David Natzler. In other words, Mr. Bercow – a coherent supporter of the rights of backbenchers – would hardly hinder a third vote if legislators really wanted the chance to vote on it.
"It would be ridiculous for him to apply a rule, a literal construction of a rule, if he frustrated what the House wants," said Jack Simson Caird, a former House of Commons scholar, senior researcher at the Bingham Center for the state of law.
The question was the subject Thursday morning many debates concluded that Mr. Bercow – who had opposed Brexit in the referendum, and demonstrated his willingness to frustrate Mrs. May's agenda – is unlikely to launch this particular grenade
That said, we are in strange constitutional periods, with the Parliament looking for a way to play a role while the countdown to the Brexit reaches the last stage. "It's totally unprecedented," Caird said. "The system cannot really cope with what is required."
The pound oscillates on the Brexit uncertainty
Wednesday's vote to reject a Brexit no-deal pushed the pound to its highest level since June 2018. The value of the pound is expected to decrease if the Gran Brittany leaves without an agreement, and the vote reflects concerns on the part of legislators and their desire to try to prevent it.
However, the continued uncertainty could lead to greater volatility in the British currency, as members of Parliament have canceled the Brexit delay. The pound equalized its earnings after Wednesday night's vote and was around $ 1.32 Thursday morning.
"Overall, this week's Brexit developments have argued that the direction of the journey is towards a late and potentially weaker Brexit that has sustained a stronger pound," Mitsubishi UFG Bank analysts wrote this morning a note. But they warned: "Even political developments are becoming increasingly uncertain."