• There are only 15 days to go before Great Britain, and no consensus on how to do it, Parliament voted Thursday to postpone the departure date which is fast approaching.
• With the narrowest margin, Prime Minister Theresa May rejected a power game by legislators who wanted to wrest control of the Brexit process from her. They also voted against the second referendum on the subject
. • Parliament has twice rejected the withdrawal agreement proposed by Ms. May, making dramatic margins. Wednesday they surrounded her further by passing a measure against any attempt to leave without an agreement.
In conflict with itself, Parliament asks Europe for more time
Parliamentarians voted 412 to 202 on Thursday to seek a delay in Britain's withdrawal from the European Union, a move that means that the country will almost certainly not leave the blockade scheduled for March 29th.
The decision comes at the end of two years of tortuous negotiations for a withdrawal plan that Prime Minister Theresa May has failed twice to get Parliament through, leaving the trial in limbo just 15 days from the end.
During that time Ms. May had insisted she would take her country out of the European Union on March 29, with or without an agreement. But faced with a mutiny on the part of her own lawmakers, Ms. May has finally agreed to offer Parliament the opportunity to request a referral.
In practical terms, the vote today means that Mrs. May will request a postponement when she attends a meeting of the Union leaders next week in Brussels. All the other 27 members of the block should agree to extend the exit process
. Many experts say that the European Union is likely to grant an extension, although the duration of its duration is less certain.
Lady. May said that if Parliament agrees to an agreement in the coming days, the delay should be only one or two or three months. But if it fails to do so, it would be forced to request a longer extension, perhaps until the end of 2020.
Lawmakers barely seek and fail to take control of Brexit
Legislators have made their strongest offer yet to take control of the Brexit process by Prime Minister Theresa May, but failed with a razor thin vote of 314 votes to 312.
The measure would have meant that Parliament would take a series of " indicative votes "on what he wants to see in a Brexit deal. Even if the votes would not be binding on the government or Mrs. May, who is already trapped among the warring factions, politically, they would have further constrained it.
But with the thinnest margin, Ms. May marked a rare legislative victory in this season of arrest bars for her government, maintaining the battered control of the government's position in the negotiations with the Union European.
For Ms. May, the problem has always been that even though most legislators support Brexit as a broad concept, they are not vehemently in agreement with the specifications. Twice, he brought the agreement he reached in Parliament with scrupulous negotiations with the European Union, and twice the legislators rejected it with wide margins.
If Parliament had taken control, it could have gravitated towards a more tenuous Brexit, maintaining closer ties with the continent than it requested in its plan. This would have infuriated the tough supporters of Brexit in his conservative party, not only the legislators but also the ranks.
Legislators reject the idea of another referendum
The British Parliament has rejected a measure that called for a second referendum on Brexit, for now precipitous – the hopes of some activists that British citizens will overturn and voted to stay in the European Union.
The amendment seemed to have been condemned from the beginning, since the notion of a second referendum has never commanded a majority in Parliament. At the start of the day it was an incredible blow, when the greatest activists for a public vote urged members of Parliament to vote against the measure, arguing that Thursday's attention should be solely to delay the Brexit.
The Labor Party, still wary of a second referendum, also promptly announced its opposition, although individual lawmakers took a careful step in an attempt to support a second referendum in other circumstances.
"Today it is not the Labor Party which says it will not support such an amendment", Keir Starmer, secretary of Brexit shadow Labor, said in Parliament on Thursday afternoon. "It is a question of saying today about the extension."
The measure failed with a vote of 334 to 85, with over 200 parliamentarians who did not vote.
The selection of the amendments to vote is the task of the rapporteur, John Bercow, who infuriated the Brexit dog lovers by declining to plan a vote on a measure aimed at excluding the possibility of a second referendum
L & # 39; May agreement not yet dead
The collapse of discipline in the government of Prime Minister Theresa May has lately been so serious that some of its legislators have claimed that the best thing he could do is announce his day of departure from Downing Street.
But far from planning her resignation, Ms. May is not yet ready to give up the Brexit Plan alone, whatever Parliament is on Thursday
She has been defeated twice before – and badly – but it is not impossible that it is lucky the third time.
If a key amendment is approved on Thursday, lawmakers focus quick indicative "votes on alternative Brexit plans on Wednesday. But Ms. May would have Monday or Tuesday to prevent them and bring her unloved plan back to Parliament.
Supporters of the ardent Brexit now know that Parliament is against leaving without any agreement, something they would happily see. They will also be concerned that, if Parliament has indicative votes on Wednesday, a consensus could emerge for a plan that maintains much closer ties with the European Union than they want.
Lady. May turned her back on them this week stating openly that, if there is no support for an agreement before next week's European Union summit, she would be forced to ask for a long delay for Brexit.
This would increase the prospects of a second referendum, and could mean that Brexit could never happen.
Not all hard-line attackers see something to fear from a long delay, however. Some believe that the days of Mrs. May are numbered, and that a successor more favorable to Brexit – perhaps Boris Johnson, the former foreign secretary – would monitor what happened next.
European leaders mention readiness for a long delay
Delaying Brexit could only happen with the consent of the European Union, and in the last few days the opinion of its leaders seemed to harden. Many saw little room for further negotiations, suggesting that only a general election or second referendum on Brexit would justify the fact that Great Britain postpones its departure by more than a few months.
It appears to have shifted Thursday when Donald Tusk, the president of the European Council, said that European leaders should be "open to a long extension" of Britain's members.
The comments will give weight to Ms. May's threat to pro-Brexit politicians: unless they support her agreement in a third vote next week, facing a long delay at Brexit, during which the opinion could move towards an agreement that maintains the closest links with the blockade, or even another referendum.
Simon Coveney, Irish Foreign Minister, suggested that a 21-month extension was also a possibility, bringing the date of Britain's departure to the end of 2020.
The last of a set of defeats
Prime Minister Theresa May insisted that the possibility of a Brexit without agreement should remain an option, arguing that removing it from its bargaining arsenal would negate its influence in dealing with the Union European.
However, when the Parliament met on Wednesday, it supported the motion by asking the legislators to declare that they were against leaving the European Union on March 29 unless there was an agreement in place.
Parliament took a step forward 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 Ms. May's party members have challenged her, and there is little reason to suspect that it will be the last.
Tuesday the legislators rejected, 391 votes against 242, the agreement that Ms. Maggio had negotiated with the officials of the European Union, including the last minute changes intended to persuade the recalcitrant legislators, pro-Brexit, worried that Great Britain could be subjected indefinitely to some of the economic rules of the block.
Talk to the lady The hard fight of May that was a thin coating of silver in that defeat of 149 votes: it was less emphatic than the first vote on the agreement, in January, which has lost 230 votes, a surprising margin in a 650-seat parliament  British governments rarely lose significant parliamentary votes, but Ms. May has survived numerous obstacles to Brexit – and a flow of government resignations – which will ordinarily mark the end of the mandate of the prime minister.
Whispers of a strategy are proving true
In February, a television journalist sitting in a hotel bar in Brussels overheard the head of Britain, the Brexit negotiator, Olly Robbins, talking to the Colleagues. The journalist picked up what he described as an "extraordinary" admission, one that flew before the public promises of Prime Minister Theresa May.
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.
Well, fast forward to today, and Mrs. May is doing exactly as expected by Mr. Robbins.  The White House view
President Trump has been allied with some of the most vocal supporters of a Brexit without agreement, like Nigel Farage. And Brexit supporters supported a trade agreement with the United States as one of the awards for a global break with the European Union.
The decisions of British legislators in the last few days have produced that sort of Brexit – and that kind of wide-ranging trade deal – much less likely. On Thursday morning, Mr. Trump played an optimistic note on Twitter.
Later, however, during a photo session of Oval Office with Prime Minister Leo Varadkar of Ireland, his tone on the topic was less sunny.
"I am not going to comment on Brexit. I can tell you that it is a very complex thing to gong now," he said, adding, "it is destroying many countries. And it is a pity it should be so. I think we will stay in our lane. "
The second supporters of the referendum await their moment
A kerfuffle broke out Thursday afternoon in the ranks of supporters of a second Brexit referendum, with the Labor Party once again accused of selling the pro-European cause.
The source of the tension was an amendment, to be voted on Thursday night, which says that Brexit should be postponed so that the country can vote again.
But the greatest supporters for a second referendum are not, it turns out, in support of the amendment to hold a second referendum. And this gave Labor leaders, forever the limit when it comes to Brexit, all the coverage they needed to not do it.
The reason, apparently, was that Thursday's attention should be to delay Brexit. Anti-Brexit activists want to hold a vote for a second referendum in Parliament until it is among the last options standing.
But the basis of this was the reality that a second referendum does not currently control the majority in Parliament, and its supporters did not want it to lose the vote
However, some activists want European politicians to take a page from Mrs. May's book on the value of repeated grades. Rather than resisting until the last moment, they say, politicians should vote for a second referendum again and again until they win.
A potential surprise lurks in the Parliament's rulebook
Among the curved balls thrown into the House of Commons on Wednesday was the statement that the speaker, John Bercow, technically has the right to prevent the government from returning the withdrawal agreement, twice rejected by majority majorities, for a third vote.
The legal basis for this proposition lies deep within Parliament's rulebook, 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, essentially, as a matter 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 of it."