Why didn't Theresa May consult with Parliament before negotiating a deal with the EU?Differences between Theresa May and Jeremy Corbyn's opinion on selling arms to Saudi Arabia?What public statements has Theresa May made regarding fox hunting?Why doesn't Theresa May sack hard-Brexiteers from cabinet?Donald Trump on the Irish border?What did Theresa May mean by: the EU wants a backstop to the backstop?What are the main reasons for why negotiating a proper Brexit deal has been so hard?How did Theresa May remain PM after her Brexit deal was rejected?What will happen if Parliament votes “no” on each of the Brexit-related votes to be held on the 12th, 13th and 14th of March?Why can't the Brexit deadlock in the UK parliament be solved with a plurality vote?Is it common to order cabinet members to abstain?

Tiptoe or tiphoof? Adjusting words to better fit fantasy races

India just shot down a satellite from the ground. At what altitude range is the resulting debris field?

How do scammers retract money, while you can’t?

How to check is there any negative term in a large list?

Shortcut for value of this indefinite integral?

Purchasing a ticket for someone else in another country?

Sequence of Tenses: Translating the subjunctive

Is oxalic acid dihydrate considered a primary acid standard in analytical chemistry?

Short story about space worker geeks who zone out by 'listening' to radiation from stars

How to pronounce the slash sign

Replace character with another only if repeated and not part of a word

Is `x >> pure y` equivalent to `liftM (const y) x`

Roman Numeral Treatment of Suspensions

What is the difference between "behavior" and "behaviour"?

System.debug(JSON.Serialize(o)) Not longer shows full string

How can a function with a hole (removable discontinuity) equal a function with no hole?

Go Pregnant or Go Home

Do sorcerers' Subtle Spells require a skill check to be unseen?

Large drywall patch supports

Valid Badminton Score?

Applicability of Single Responsibility Principle

How do I extract a value from a time formatted value in excel?

Why are there no referendums in the US?

Is expanding the research of a group into machine learning as a PhD student risky?



Why didn't Theresa May consult with Parliament before negotiating a deal with the EU?


Differences between Theresa May and Jeremy Corbyn's opinion on selling arms to Saudi Arabia?What public statements has Theresa May made regarding fox hunting?Why doesn't Theresa May sack hard-Brexiteers from cabinet?Donald Trump on the Irish border?What did Theresa May mean by: the EU wants a backstop to the backstop?What are the main reasons for why negotiating a proper Brexit deal has been so hard?How did Theresa May remain PM after her Brexit deal was rejected?What will happen if Parliament votes “no” on each of the Brexit-related votes to be held on the 12th, 13th and 14th of March?Why can't the Brexit deadlock in the UK parliament be solved with a plurality vote?Is it common to order cabinet members to abstain?













18















The House of Commons will today vote on a series of indicative votes, in order to find out "the will of the house", and thus break the current deadlock with Brexit. These votes come after the deal that Theresa May negotiated privately with the EU was rejected twice by the House of Commons.



The question is, why didn't Theresa May consult the "will of the house" two years ago (i.e. before starting negotiations with the EU), given that any deal had to be ratified by parliament anyway? Why did she choose to go solo and define herself (not even her party) the UK red lines and what Leave was supposed to mean?










share|improve this question



















  • 2





    This question assumes something that's not necessarily in evidence. It kind of assumes that the deal would be entirely defined by what the UK wants, as if the EU's wants either don't exist or would be subservient to the UK's wants. The deal was negotiated between two parties, and therefore reflects what the two parties could agree to, not what either party wants.

    – Nicol Bolas
    15 hours ago











  • @NicolBolas No. I am not assuming the outcome would have been necessarily different, better or worse. I am merely asking why TM chose one strategy and not the other.

    – luchonacho
    15 hours ago






  • 5





    I'm saying that you're assuming that Parliament was not consulted, and the only evidence you offer of that is that Parliament rejected the EU deal. The PM didn't make Parliament vote on a negotiating position, but that's a far cry from saying that she didn't consult Parliament at all. So are you asking why she didn't make them vote on a negotiating position, or can you provide evidence that she didn't consult Parliament at all?

    – Nicol Bolas
    15 hours ago











  • @NicolBolas Division has always been evident, even within her own party. Why not to produce a series of votes to test the "will of the house"? I do not mean "consult with Parliament" as in talk to people here and there.

    – luchonacho
    15 hours ago






  • 2





    Then please clarify your question that you're asking specifically about making Parliament vote on something.

    – Nicol Bolas
    15 hours ago















18















The House of Commons will today vote on a series of indicative votes, in order to find out "the will of the house", and thus break the current deadlock with Brexit. These votes come after the deal that Theresa May negotiated privately with the EU was rejected twice by the House of Commons.



The question is, why didn't Theresa May consult the "will of the house" two years ago (i.e. before starting negotiations with the EU), given that any deal had to be ratified by parliament anyway? Why did she choose to go solo and define herself (not even her party) the UK red lines and what Leave was supposed to mean?










share|improve this question



















  • 2





    This question assumes something that's not necessarily in evidence. It kind of assumes that the deal would be entirely defined by what the UK wants, as if the EU's wants either don't exist or would be subservient to the UK's wants. The deal was negotiated between two parties, and therefore reflects what the two parties could agree to, not what either party wants.

    – Nicol Bolas
    15 hours ago











  • @NicolBolas No. I am not assuming the outcome would have been necessarily different, better or worse. I am merely asking why TM chose one strategy and not the other.

    – luchonacho
    15 hours ago






  • 5





    I'm saying that you're assuming that Parliament was not consulted, and the only evidence you offer of that is that Parliament rejected the EU deal. The PM didn't make Parliament vote on a negotiating position, but that's a far cry from saying that she didn't consult Parliament at all. So are you asking why she didn't make them vote on a negotiating position, or can you provide evidence that she didn't consult Parliament at all?

    – Nicol Bolas
    15 hours ago











  • @NicolBolas Division has always been evident, even within her own party. Why not to produce a series of votes to test the "will of the house"? I do not mean "consult with Parliament" as in talk to people here and there.

    – luchonacho
    15 hours ago






  • 2





    Then please clarify your question that you're asking specifically about making Parliament vote on something.

    – Nicol Bolas
    15 hours ago













18












18








18


2






The House of Commons will today vote on a series of indicative votes, in order to find out "the will of the house", and thus break the current deadlock with Brexit. These votes come after the deal that Theresa May negotiated privately with the EU was rejected twice by the House of Commons.



The question is, why didn't Theresa May consult the "will of the house" two years ago (i.e. before starting negotiations with the EU), given that any deal had to be ratified by parliament anyway? Why did she choose to go solo and define herself (not even her party) the UK red lines and what Leave was supposed to mean?










share|improve this question
















The House of Commons will today vote on a series of indicative votes, in order to find out "the will of the house", and thus break the current deadlock with Brexit. These votes come after the deal that Theresa May negotiated privately with the EU was rejected twice by the House of Commons.



The question is, why didn't Theresa May consult the "will of the house" two years ago (i.e. before starting negotiations with the EU), given that any deal had to be ratified by parliament anyway? Why did she choose to go solo and define herself (not even her party) the UK red lines and what Leave was supposed to mean?







united-kingdom brexit house-of-commons theresa-may






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited 12 hours ago









Martin Schröder

1,1681933




1,1681933










asked 15 hours ago









luchonacholuchonacho

1,7981731




1,7981731







  • 2





    This question assumes something that's not necessarily in evidence. It kind of assumes that the deal would be entirely defined by what the UK wants, as if the EU's wants either don't exist or would be subservient to the UK's wants. The deal was negotiated between two parties, and therefore reflects what the two parties could agree to, not what either party wants.

    – Nicol Bolas
    15 hours ago











  • @NicolBolas No. I am not assuming the outcome would have been necessarily different, better or worse. I am merely asking why TM chose one strategy and not the other.

    – luchonacho
    15 hours ago






  • 5





    I'm saying that you're assuming that Parliament was not consulted, and the only evidence you offer of that is that Parliament rejected the EU deal. The PM didn't make Parliament vote on a negotiating position, but that's a far cry from saying that she didn't consult Parliament at all. So are you asking why she didn't make them vote on a negotiating position, or can you provide evidence that she didn't consult Parliament at all?

    – Nicol Bolas
    15 hours ago











  • @NicolBolas Division has always been evident, even within her own party. Why not to produce a series of votes to test the "will of the house"? I do not mean "consult with Parliament" as in talk to people here and there.

    – luchonacho
    15 hours ago






  • 2





    Then please clarify your question that you're asking specifically about making Parliament vote on something.

    – Nicol Bolas
    15 hours ago












  • 2





    This question assumes something that's not necessarily in evidence. It kind of assumes that the deal would be entirely defined by what the UK wants, as if the EU's wants either don't exist or would be subservient to the UK's wants. The deal was negotiated between two parties, and therefore reflects what the two parties could agree to, not what either party wants.

    – Nicol Bolas
    15 hours ago











  • @NicolBolas No. I am not assuming the outcome would have been necessarily different, better or worse. I am merely asking why TM chose one strategy and not the other.

    – luchonacho
    15 hours ago






  • 5





    I'm saying that you're assuming that Parliament was not consulted, and the only evidence you offer of that is that Parliament rejected the EU deal. The PM didn't make Parliament vote on a negotiating position, but that's a far cry from saying that she didn't consult Parliament at all. So are you asking why she didn't make them vote on a negotiating position, or can you provide evidence that she didn't consult Parliament at all?

    – Nicol Bolas
    15 hours ago











  • @NicolBolas Division has always been evident, even within her own party. Why not to produce a series of votes to test the "will of the house"? I do not mean "consult with Parliament" as in talk to people here and there.

    – luchonacho
    15 hours ago






  • 2





    Then please clarify your question that you're asking specifically about making Parliament vote on something.

    – Nicol Bolas
    15 hours ago







2




2





This question assumes something that's not necessarily in evidence. It kind of assumes that the deal would be entirely defined by what the UK wants, as if the EU's wants either don't exist or would be subservient to the UK's wants. The deal was negotiated between two parties, and therefore reflects what the two parties could agree to, not what either party wants.

– Nicol Bolas
15 hours ago





This question assumes something that's not necessarily in evidence. It kind of assumes that the deal would be entirely defined by what the UK wants, as if the EU's wants either don't exist or would be subservient to the UK's wants. The deal was negotiated between two parties, and therefore reflects what the two parties could agree to, not what either party wants.

– Nicol Bolas
15 hours ago













@NicolBolas No. I am not assuming the outcome would have been necessarily different, better or worse. I am merely asking why TM chose one strategy and not the other.

– luchonacho
15 hours ago





@NicolBolas No. I am not assuming the outcome would have been necessarily different, better or worse. I am merely asking why TM chose one strategy and not the other.

– luchonacho
15 hours ago




5




5





I'm saying that you're assuming that Parliament was not consulted, and the only evidence you offer of that is that Parliament rejected the EU deal. The PM didn't make Parliament vote on a negotiating position, but that's a far cry from saying that she didn't consult Parliament at all. So are you asking why she didn't make them vote on a negotiating position, or can you provide evidence that she didn't consult Parliament at all?

– Nicol Bolas
15 hours ago





I'm saying that you're assuming that Parliament was not consulted, and the only evidence you offer of that is that Parliament rejected the EU deal. The PM didn't make Parliament vote on a negotiating position, but that's a far cry from saying that she didn't consult Parliament at all. So are you asking why she didn't make them vote on a negotiating position, or can you provide evidence that she didn't consult Parliament at all?

– Nicol Bolas
15 hours ago













@NicolBolas Division has always been evident, even within her own party. Why not to produce a series of votes to test the "will of the house"? I do not mean "consult with Parliament" as in talk to people here and there.

– luchonacho
15 hours ago





@NicolBolas Division has always been evident, even within her own party. Why not to produce a series of votes to test the "will of the house"? I do not mean "consult with Parliament" as in talk to people here and there.

– luchonacho
15 hours ago




2




2





Then please clarify your question that you're asking specifically about making Parliament vote on something.

– Nicol Bolas
15 hours ago





Then please clarify your question that you're asking specifically about making Parliament vote on something.

– Nicol Bolas
15 hours ago










3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes


















20














After the referendum there was no requirement to consult Parliament on any deal, the government could have simply agreed it with the EU and presented it as the only option on the table - take it or leave with no deal. Given that most MPs are strongly against a no-deal exit, it would likely have passed due to them having no other choice.



However, thanks to legal action by Gina Miller the government was forced to promise giving Parliament a "meaningful vote" on the final deal. In December 2017 it was written into law.



By that point the negotiations had already started and were going very badly. May had set out her "red lines", things she would not compromise on but which the EU had pointed out made the kind of deal she was seeking impossible. The problem was exacerbated by her failure to specify precisely what she wanted (the infamous "brexit means brexit" meaningless mantra), which seemed like an effort to delay giving her MPs any substance to argue over.



So basically by the time she was forced to consult with Parliament instead of just ramming the deal through, it was already too late to do so without tearing the Tory Party apart and staring a prolonged debate during what was supposed to be a negotiation focusing on the detail of the withdrawal.



Her plan thus became to leave everything to the last possible moment, in the hope denying Parliament any real choice again.






share|improve this answer


















  • 1





    Thanks. Can you clarify what changed after the legal action by Gina Miller? You state in your first paragraph: "he government could have simply agreed it with the EU and presented it as the only option on the table - take it or leave with no deal." That sounds no different than the meaningful vote twice rejected.

    – luchonacho
    14 hours ago






  • 2





    @luchonacho the term "meaningful vote" is taken to mean that some other acceptable option must be possible, because a vote between political suicide and the deal isn't a meaningful choice.

    – user
    13 hours ago






  • 2





    @luchonacho. Theresa May did not think she had to consult Parliament at all. She believed she could negotiate and ratify an agreement since the referendum gave her all the mandate she needed. Once Parliament's approval was needed she was stuck since some MPs want a business-friendly hard Brexit, some want a business-friendly soft Brexit, some want a worker-friendly hard Brexit and some want a worker-friendly hard Brexit. It is unclear if there is a majority for any of these alternatives. Please don't ask what soft and hard Brexit mean since they have not been agreed yet.

    – Tony Dallimore
    11 hours ago






  • 1





    Other issues are the Ireland/Northern Ireland and the Spanish/Gibraltar borders. I do not think many English voters appreciated the importance of these borders in 2016. Certainly, few understood they would become the killer issues they are. We have no solution for these border problems and little idea what a solution might look like. The current deal is that we stay in the EU as paying, rule obeying but non-voting members until solutions are identified. If you are an MP seeking re-election, how will you justify that to your leave-voting electors?

    – Tony Dallimore
    11 hours ago


















15














Perhaps one thing you may be forgetting is that, when the Brexit negotiations between the UK and the EU started, the Conservative Party had a healthy majority in the house of commons. Therefore, there was some level of confidence in the UK Government that, as long as they could negotiate a deal with the EU that was acceptable to the Tory Party, they would be able to use their majority to get it through Parliament.



However, in 2017, Theresa May made the (in hindsight, unwise) decision to call a general election. At the time, she was confident that it would boost the Tory Party's majority; however, the result was the exact opposite - the Tory party lost seats and lost their majority (even though no other party gained a majority either, i.e. it was a hung parliament).



As a result of that general election/hung parliament, the balance of power in the UK Parliament shifted. Now the Tory Party lacks a majority and requires the support of the Northern Irish DUP in order to get any legislation through. So, the outcome of this disastrous (from the Tory point-of-view) election has given Parliament considerably more power over Brexit than they had at the time the negotiations began.



In summary: the political situation has changed.






share|improve this answer










New contributor




Time4Tea is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.















  • 1





    I'm not sure that the DUP would thank you for calling them "Irish"!

    – owjburnham
    14 hours ago






  • 1





    This a decent answer, but since the June 2017 election a lot of time has passed. So still, why not call indicative votes during all this time? You haven't quite answered that.

    – Fizz
    14 hours ago






  • 4





    Thing is she lost so badly in the vote on her deal even if every extra member of her former majority voted for it she would still have lost.

    – user
    14 hours ago






  • 1





    @owjburnham good point. I agree with Fizz's edit.

    – Time4Tea
    13 hours ago






  • 1





    @user a fair point, although she didn't know that until the votes were held. With a healthy majority, she may have believed she could just push it through.

    – Time4Tea
    12 hours ago


















2














The original approach perhaps was flawed. Instead of negotiating smaller easy less controversial points and getting those passed early and often, before tackling bigger thornier issues, they decided to cobble everything together into one big bloated deal. There are advantages and disadvantages to this. But as relates to your question, the big disadvantage is that it can quickly get so complicated that it is impossible to keep updating everybody (or anybody eventually) about the details. It's just too much. This is why it appeared from those of us on the outside the May seemed to go 'silo', excluding even her own Brexit negotiators, and traveling to the EU over 50 times in total (24 trips to Brussels alone). She was away from Parliament often and attempting a broad highly detailed negotiation. It wasn't on purpose. It was just a natural result of the scale of what she was trying to do. She simply lost touch.






share|improve this answer


















  • 5





    I'm not sure the EU would have agreed to split up the withdrawal negotiations into 'smaller, less controversial points' in the way you suggest. The structure and format of the negotiations was not something the UK could simply dictate. In fact, the EU was very assertive right at the start by saying: "The EU27 have discussed and this is how the negotiations must be conducted." The UK would probably have preferred to conduct withdrawal and trade discussion simultaneously, but the EU rejected that.

    – Time4Tea
    12 hours ago







  • 1





    @Time4Tea, I honestly don't believe anybody on either side had enough of a clue on how to approach negotiations such that anybody woud have been 'dictating' anything. It just sort of started out of a small snowball of an idea, some talks here and there, and turned into unpassable monstrosity. Looking back, I believe both sides would like to have probably tried out any of a number of different approaches to making the proper arrangements.

    – ouflak
    8 hours ago











Your Answer








StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "475"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);

else
createEditor();

);

function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);



);













draft saved

draft discarded


















StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fpolitics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f39892%2fwhy-didnt-theresa-may-consult-with-parliament-before-negotiating-a-deal-with-th%23new-answer', 'question_page');

);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown

























3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes








3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes









20














After the referendum there was no requirement to consult Parliament on any deal, the government could have simply agreed it with the EU and presented it as the only option on the table - take it or leave with no deal. Given that most MPs are strongly against a no-deal exit, it would likely have passed due to them having no other choice.



However, thanks to legal action by Gina Miller the government was forced to promise giving Parliament a "meaningful vote" on the final deal. In December 2017 it was written into law.



By that point the negotiations had already started and were going very badly. May had set out her "red lines", things she would not compromise on but which the EU had pointed out made the kind of deal she was seeking impossible. The problem was exacerbated by her failure to specify precisely what she wanted (the infamous "brexit means brexit" meaningless mantra), which seemed like an effort to delay giving her MPs any substance to argue over.



So basically by the time she was forced to consult with Parliament instead of just ramming the deal through, it was already too late to do so without tearing the Tory Party apart and staring a prolonged debate during what was supposed to be a negotiation focusing on the detail of the withdrawal.



Her plan thus became to leave everything to the last possible moment, in the hope denying Parliament any real choice again.






share|improve this answer


















  • 1





    Thanks. Can you clarify what changed after the legal action by Gina Miller? You state in your first paragraph: "he government could have simply agreed it with the EU and presented it as the only option on the table - take it or leave with no deal." That sounds no different than the meaningful vote twice rejected.

    – luchonacho
    14 hours ago






  • 2





    @luchonacho the term "meaningful vote" is taken to mean that some other acceptable option must be possible, because a vote between political suicide and the deal isn't a meaningful choice.

    – user
    13 hours ago






  • 2





    @luchonacho. Theresa May did not think she had to consult Parliament at all. She believed she could negotiate and ratify an agreement since the referendum gave her all the mandate she needed. Once Parliament's approval was needed she was stuck since some MPs want a business-friendly hard Brexit, some want a business-friendly soft Brexit, some want a worker-friendly hard Brexit and some want a worker-friendly hard Brexit. It is unclear if there is a majority for any of these alternatives. Please don't ask what soft and hard Brexit mean since they have not been agreed yet.

    – Tony Dallimore
    11 hours ago






  • 1





    Other issues are the Ireland/Northern Ireland and the Spanish/Gibraltar borders. I do not think many English voters appreciated the importance of these borders in 2016. Certainly, few understood they would become the killer issues they are. We have no solution for these border problems and little idea what a solution might look like. The current deal is that we stay in the EU as paying, rule obeying but non-voting members until solutions are identified. If you are an MP seeking re-election, how will you justify that to your leave-voting electors?

    – Tony Dallimore
    11 hours ago















20














After the referendum there was no requirement to consult Parliament on any deal, the government could have simply agreed it with the EU and presented it as the only option on the table - take it or leave with no deal. Given that most MPs are strongly against a no-deal exit, it would likely have passed due to them having no other choice.



However, thanks to legal action by Gina Miller the government was forced to promise giving Parliament a "meaningful vote" on the final deal. In December 2017 it was written into law.



By that point the negotiations had already started and were going very badly. May had set out her "red lines", things she would not compromise on but which the EU had pointed out made the kind of deal she was seeking impossible. The problem was exacerbated by her failure to specify precisely what she wanted (the infamous "brexit means brexit" meaningless mantra), which seemed like an effort to delay giving her MPs any substance to argue over.



So basically by the time she was forced to consult with Parliament instead of just ramming the deal through, it was already too late to do so without tearing the Tory Party apart and staring a prolonged debate during what was supposed to be a negotiation focusing on the detail of the withdrawal.



Her plan thus became to leave everything to the last possible moment, in the hope denying Parliament any real choice again.






share|improve this answer


















  • 1





    Thanks. Can you clarify what changed after the legal action by Gina Miller? You state in your first paragraph: "he government could have simply agreed it with the EU and presented it as the only option on the table - take it or leave with no deal." That sounds no different than the meaningful vote twice rejected.

    – luchonacho
    14 hours ago






  • 2





    @luchonacho the term "meaningful vote" is taken to mean that some other acceptable option must be possible, because a vote between political suicide and the deal isn't a meaningful choice.

    – user
    13 hours ago






  • 2





    @luchonacho. Theresa May did not think she had to consult Parliament at all. She believed she could negotiate and ratify an agreement since the referendum gave her all the mandate she needed. Once Parliament's approval was needed she was stuck since some MPs want a business-friendly hard Brexit, some want a business-friendly soft Brexit, some want a worker-friendly hard Brexit and some want a worker-friendly hard Brexit. It is unclear if there is a majority for any of these alternatives. Please don't ask what soft and hard Brexit mean since they have not been agreed yet.

    – Tony Dallimore
    11 hours ago






  • 1





    Other issues are the Ireland/Northern Ireland and the Spanish/Gibraltar borders. I do not think many English voters appreciated the importance of these borders in 2016. Certainly, few understood they would become the killer issues they are. We have no solution for these border problems and little idea what a solution might look like. The current deal is that we stay in the EU as paying, rule obeying but non-voting members until solutions are identified. If you are an MP seeking re-election, how will you justify that to your leave-voting electors?

    – Tony Dallimore
    11 hours ago













20












20








20







After the referendum there was no requirement to consult Parliament on any deal, the government could have simply agreed it with the EU and presented it as the only option on the table - take it or leave with no deal. Given that most MPs are strongly against a no-deal exit, it would likely have passed due to them having no other choice.



However, thanks to legal action by Gina Miller the government was forced to promise giving Parliament a "meaningful vote" on the final deal. In December 2017 it was written into law.



By that point the negotiations had already started and were going very badly. May had set out her "red lines", things she would not compromise on but which the EU had pointed out made the kind of deal she was seeking impossible. The problem was exacerbated by her failure to specify precisely what she wanted (the infamous "brexit means brexit" meaningless mantra), which seemed like an effort to delay giving her MPs any substance to argue over.



So basically by the time she was forced to consult with Parliament instead of just ramming the deal through, it was already too late to do so without tearing the Tory Party apart and staring a prolonged debate during what was supposed to be a negotiation focusing on the detail of the withdrawal.



Her plan thus became to leave everything to the last possible moment, in the hope denying Parliament any real choice again.






share|improve this answer













After the referendum there was no requirement to consult Parliament on any deal, the government could have simply agreed it with the EU and presented it as the only option on the table - take it or leave with no deal. Given that most MPs are strongly against a no-deal exit, it would likely have passed due to them having no other choice.



However, thanks to legal action by Gina Miller the government was forced to promise giving Parliament a "meaningful vote" on the final deal. In December 2017 it was written into law.



By that point the negotiations had already started and were going very badly. May had set out her "red lines", things she would not compromise on but which the EU had pointed out made the kind of deal she was seeking impossible. The problem was exacerbated by her failure to specify precisely what she wanted (the infamous "brexit means brexit" meaningless mantra), which seemed like an effort to delay giving her MPs any substance to argue over.



So basically by the time she was forced to consult with Parliament instead of just ramming the deal through, it was already too late to do so without tearing the Tory Party apart and staring a prolonged debate during what was supposed to be a negotiation focusing on the detail of the withdrawal.



Her plan thus became to leave everything to the last possible moment, in the hope denying Parliament any real choice again.







share|improve this answer












share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer










answered 14 hours ago









useruser

9,78732140




9,78732140







  • 1





    Thanks. Can you clarify what changed after the legal action by Gina Miller? You state in your first paragraph: "he government could have simply agreed it with the EU and presented it as the only option on the table - take it or leave with no deal." That sounds no different than the meaningful vote twice rejected.

    – luchonacho
    14 hours ago






  • 2





    @luchonacho the term "meaningful vote" is taken to mean that some other acceptable option must be possible, because a vote between political suicide and the deal isn't a meaningful choice.

    – user
    13 hours ago






  • 2





    @luchonacho. Theresa May did not think she had to consult Parliament at all. She believed she could negotiate and ratify an agreement since the referendum gave her all the mandate she needed. Once Parliament's approval was needed she was stuck since some MPs want a business-friendly hard Brexit, some want a business-friendly soft Brexit, some want a worker-friendly hard Brexit and some want a worker-friendly hard Brexit. It is unclear if there is a majority for any of these alternatives. Please don't ask what soft and hard Brexit mean since they have not been agreed yet.

    – Tony Dallimore
    11 hours ago






  • 1





    Other issues are the Ireland/Northern Ireland and the Spanish/Gibraltar borders. I do not think many English voters appreciated the importance of these borders in 2016. Certainly, few understood they would become the killer issues they are. We have no solution for these border problems and little idea what a solution might look like. The current deal is that we stay in the EU as paying, rule obeying but non-voting members until solutions are identified. If you are an MP seeking re-election, how will you justify that to your leave-voting electors?

    – Tony Dallimore
    11 hours ago












  • 1





    Thanks. Can you clarify what changed after the legal action by Gina Miller? You state in your first paragraph: "he government could have simply agreed it with the EU and presented it as the only option on the table - take it or leave with no deal." That sounds no different than the meaningful vote twice rejected.

    – luchonacho
    14 hours ago






  • 2





    @luchonacho the term "meaningful vote" is taken to mean that some other acceptable option must be possible, because a vote between political suicide and the deal isn't a meaningful choice.

    – user
    13 hours ago






  • 2





    @luchonacho. Theresa May did not think she had to consult Parliament at all. She believed she could negotiate and ratify an agreement since the referendum gave her all the mandate she needed. Once Parliament's approval was needed she was stuck since some MPs want a business-friendly hard Brexit, some want a business-friendly soft Brexit, some want a worker-friendly hard Brexit and some want a worker-friendly hard Brexit. It is unclear if there is a majority for any of these alternatives. Please don't ask what soft and hard Brexit mean since they have not been agreed yet.

    – Tony Dallimore
    11 hours ago






  • 1





    Other issues are the Ireland/Northern Ireland and the Spanish/Gibraltar borders. I do not think many English voters appreciated the importance of these borders in 2016. Certainly, few understood they would become the killer issues they are. We have no solution for these border problems and little idea what a solution might look like. The current deal is that we stay in the EU as paying, rule obeying but non-voting members until solutions are identified. If you are an MP seeking re-election, how will you justify that to your leave-voting electors?

    – Tony Dallimore
    11 hours ago







1




1





Thanks. Can you clarify what changed after the legal action by Gina Miller? You state in your first paragraph: "he government could have simply agreed it with the EU and presented it as the only option on the table - take it or leave with no deal." That sounds no different than the meaningful vote twice rejected.

– luchonacho
14 hours ago





Thanks. Can you clarify what changed after the legal action by Gina Miller? You state in your first paragraph: "he government could have simply agreed it with the EU and presented it as the only option on the table - take it or leave with no deal." That sounds no different than the meaningful vote twice rejected.

– luchonacho
14 hours ago




2




2





@luchonacho the term "meaningful vote" is taken to mean that some other acceptable option must be possible, because a vote between political suicide and the deal isn't a meaningful choice.

– user
13 hours ago





@luchonacho the term "meaningful vote" is taken to mean that some other acceptable option must be possible, because a vote between political suicide and the deal isn't a meaningful choice.

– user
13 hours ago




2




2





@luchonacho. Theresa May did not think she had to consult Parliament at all. She believed she could negotiate and ratify an agreement since the referendum gave her all the mandate she needed. Once Parliament's approval was needed she was stuck since some MPs want a business-friendly hard Brexit, some want a business-friendly soft Brexit, some want a worker-friendly hard Brexit and some want a worker-friendly hard Brexit. It is unclear if there is a majority for any of these alternatives. Please don't ask what soft and hard Brexit mean since they have not been agreed yet.

– Tony Dallimore
11 hours ago





@luchonacho. Theresa May did not think she had to consult Parliament at all. She believed she could negotiate and ratify an agreement since the referendum gave her all the mandate she needed. Once Parliament's approval was needed she was stuck since some MPs want a business-friendly hard Brexit, some want a business-friendly soft Brexit, some want a worker-friendly hard Brexit and some want a worker-friendly hard Brexit. It is unclear if there is a majority for any of these alternatives. Please don't ask what soft and hard Brexit mean since they have not been agreed yet.

– Tony Dallimore
11 hours ago




1




1





Other issues are the Ireland/Northern Ireland and the Spanish/Gibraltar borders. I do not think many English voters appreciated the importance of these borders in 2016. Certainly, few understood they would become the killer issues they are. We have no solution for these border problems and little idea what a solution might look like. The current deal is that we stay in the EU as paying, rule obeying but non-voting members until solutions are identified. If you are an MP seeking re-election, how will you justify that to your leave-voting electors?

– Tony Dallimore
11 hours ago





Other issues are the Ireland/Northern Ireland and the Spanish/Gibraltar borders. I do not think many English voters appreciated the importance of these borders in 2016. Certainly, few understood they would become the killer issues they are. We have no solution for these border problems and little idea what a solution might look like. The current deal is that we stay in the EU as paying, rule obeying but non-voting members until solutions are identified. If you are an MP seeking re-election, how will you justify that to your leave-voting electors?

– Tony Dallimore
11 hours ago











15














Perhaps one thing you may be forgetting is that, when the Brexit negotiations between the UK and the EU started, the Conservative Party had a healthy majority in the house of commons. Therefore, there was some level of confidence in the UK Government that, as long as they could negotiate a deal with the EU that was acceptable to the Tory Party, they would be able to use their majority to get it through Parliament.



However, in 2017, Theresa May made the (in hindsight, unwise) decision to call a general election. At the time, she was confident that it would boost the Tory Party's majority; however, the result was the exact opposite - the Tory party lost seats and lost their majority (even though no other party gained a majority either, i.e. it was a hung parliament).



As a result of that general election/hung parliament, the balance of power in the UK Parliament shifted. Now the Tory Party lacks a majority and requires the support of the Northern Irish DUP in order to get any legislation through. So, the outcome of this disastrous (from the Tory point-of-view) election has given Parliament considerably more power over Brexit than they had at the time the negotiations began.



In summary: the political situation has changed.






share|improve this answer










New contributor




Time4Tea is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.















  • 1





    I'm not sure that the DUP would thank you for calling them "Irish"!

    – owjburnham
    14 hours ago






  • 1





    This a decent answer, but since the June 2017 election a lot of time has passed. So still, why not call indicative votes during all this time? You haven't quite answered that.

    – Fizz
    14 hours ago






  • 4





    Thing is she lost so badly in the vote on her deal even if every extra member of her former majority voted for it she would still have lost.

    – user
    14 hours ago






  • 1





    @owjburnham good point. I agree with Fizz's edit.

    – Time4Tea
    13 hours ago






  • 1





    @user a fair point, although she didn't know that until the votes were held. With a healthy majority, she may have believed she could just push it through.

    – Time4Tea
    12 hours ago















15














Perhaps one thing you may be forgetting is that, when the Brexit negotiations between the UK and the EU started, the Conservative Party had a healthy majority in the house of commons. Therefore, there was some level of confidence in the UK Government that, as long as they could negotiate a deal with the EU that was acceptable to the Tory Party, they would be able to use their majority to get it through Parliament.



However, in 2017, Theresa May made the (in hindsight, unwise) decision to call a general election. At the time, she was confident that it would boost the Tory Party's majority; however, the result was the exact opposite - the Tory party lost seats and lost their majority (even though no other party gained a majority either, i.e. it was a hung parliament).



As a result of that general election/hung parliament, the balance of power in the UK Parliament shifted. Now the Tory Party lacks a majority and requires the support of the Northern Irish DUP in order to get any legislation through. So, the outcome of this disastrous (from the Tory point-of-view) election has given Parliament considerably more power over Brexit than they had at the time the negotiations began.



In summary: the political situation has changed.






share|improve this answer










New contributor




Time4Tea is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.















  • 1





    I'm not sure that the DUP would thank you for calling them "Irish"!

    – owjburnham
    14 hours ago






  • 1





    This a decent answer, but since the June 2017 election a lot of time has passed. So still, why not call indicative votes during all this time? You haven't quite answered that.

    – Fizz
    14 hours ago






  • 4





    Thing is she lost so badly in the vote on her deal even if every extra member of her former majority voted for it she would still have lost.

    – user
    14 hours ago






  • 1





    @owjburnham good point. I agree with Fizz's edit.

    – Time4Tea
    13 hours ago






  • 1





    @user a fair point, although she didn't know that until the votes were held. With a healthy majority, she may have believed she could just push it through.

    – Time4Tea
    12 hours ago













15












15








15







Perhaps one thing you may be forgetting is that, when the Brexit negotiations between the UK and the EU started, the Conservative Party had a healthy majority in the house of commons. Therefore, there was some level of confidence in the UK Government that, as long as they could negotiate a deal with the EU that was acceptable to the Tory Party, they would be able to use their majority to get it through Parliament.



However, in 2017, Theresa May made the (in hindsight, unwise) decision to call a general election. At the time, she was confident that it would boost the Tory Party's majority; however, the result was the exact opposite - the Tory party lost seats and lost their majority (even though no other party gained a majority either, i.e. it was a hung parliament).



As a result of that general election/hung parliament, the balance of power in the UK Parliament shifted. Now the Tory Party lacks a majority and requires the support of the Northern Irish DUP in order to get any legislation through. So, the outcome of this disastrous (from the Tory point-of-view) election has given Parliament considerably more power over Brexit than they had at the time the negotiations began.



In summary: the political situation has changed.






share|improve this answer










New contributor




Time4Tea is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.










Perhaps one thing you may be forgetting is that, when the Brexit negotiations between the UK and the EU started, the Conservative Party had a healthy majority in the house of commons. Therefore, there was some level of confidence in the UK Government that, as long as they could negotiate a deal with the EU that was acceptable to the Tory Party, they would be able to use their majority to get it through Parliament.



However, in 2017, Theresa May made the (in hindsight, unwise) decision to call a general election. At the time, she was confident that it would boost the Tory Party's majority; however, the result was the exact opposite - the Tory party lost seats and lost their majority (even though no other party gained a majority either, i.e. it was a hung parliament).



As a result of that general election/hung parliament, the balance of power in the UK Parliament shifted. Now the Tory Party lacks a majority and requires the support of the Northern Irish DUP in order to get any legislation through. So, the outcome of this disastrous (from the Tory point-of-view) election has given Parliament considerably more power over Brexit than they had at the time the negotiations began.



In summary: the political situation has changed.







share|improve this answer










New contributor




Time4Tea is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer








edited 14 hours ago









Fizz

12.1k12977




12.1k12977






New contributor




Time4Tea is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









answered 15 hours ago









Time4TeaTime4Tea

468312




468312




New contributor




Time4Tea is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.





New contributor





Time4Tea is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.






Time4Tea is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.







  • 1





    I'm not sure that the DUP would thank you for calling them "Irish"!

    – owjburnham
    14 hours ago






  • 1





    This a decent answer, but since the June 2017 election a lot of time has passed. So still, why not call indicative votes during all this time? You haven't quite answered that.

    – Fizz
    14 hours ago






  • 4





    Thing is she lost so badly in the vote on her deal even if every extra member of her former majority voted for it she would still have lost.

    – user
    14 hours ago






  • 1





    @owjburnham good point. I agree with Fizz's edit.

    – Time4Tea
    13 hours ago






  • 1





    @user a fair point, although she didn't know that until the votes were held. With a healthy majority, she may have believed she could just push it through.

    – Time4Tea
    12 hours ago












  • 1





    I'm not sure that the DUP would thank you for calling them "Irish"!

    – owjburnham
    14 hours ago






  • 1





    This a decent answer, but since the June 2017 election a lot of time has passed. So still, why not call indicative votes during all this time? You haven't quite answered that.

    – Fizz
    14 hours ago






  • 4





    Thing is she lost so badly in the vote on her deal even if every extra member of her former majority voted for it she would still have lost.

    – user
    14 hours ago






  • 1





    @owjburnham good point. I agree with Fizz's edit.

    – Time4Tea
    13 hours ago






  • 1





    @user a fair point, although she didn't know that until the votes were held. With a healthy majority, she may have believed she could just push it through.

    – Time4Tea
    12 hours ago







1




1





I'm not sure that the DUP would thank you for calling them "Irish"!

– owjburnham
14 hours ago





I'm not sure that the DUP would thank you for calling them "Irish"!

– owjburnham
14 hours ago




1




1





This a decent answer, but since the June 2017 election a lot of time has passed. So still, why not call indicative votes during all this time? You haven't quite answered that.

– Fizz
14 hours ago





This a decent answer, but since the June 2017 election a lot of time has passed. So still, why not call indicative votes during all this time? You haven't quite answered that.

– Fizz
14 hours ago




4




4





Thing is she lost so badly in the vote on her deal even if every extra member of her former majority voted for it she would still have lost.

– user
14 hours ago





Thing is she lost so badly in the vote on her deal even if every extra member of her former majority voted for it she would still have lost.

– user
14 hours ago




1




1





@owjburnham good point. I agree with Fizz's edit.

– Time4Tea
13 hours ago





@owjburnham good point. I agree with Fizz's edit.

– Time4Tea
13 hours ago




1




1





@user a fair point, although she didn't know that until the votes were held. With a healthy majority, she may have believed she could just push it through.

– Time4Tea
12 hours ago





@user a fair point, although she didn't know that until the votes were held. With a healthy majority, she may have believed she could just push it through.

– Time4Tea
12 hours ago











2














The original approach perhaps was flawed. Instead of negotiating smaller easy less controversial points and getting those passed early and often, before tackling bigger thornier issues, they decided to cobble everything together into one big bloated deal. There are advantages and disadvantages to this. But as relates to your question, the big disadvantage is that it can quickly get so complicated that it is impossible to keep updating everybody (or anybody eventually) about the details. It's just too much. This is why it appeared from those of us on the outside the May seemed to go 'silo', excluding even her own Brexit negotiators, and traveling to the EU over 50 times in total (24 trips to Brussels alone). She was away from Parliament often and attempting a broad highly detailed negotiation. It wasn't on purpose. It was just a natural result of the scale of what she was trying to do. She simply lost touch.






share|improve this answer


















  • 5





    I'm not sure the EU would have agreed to split up the withdrawal negotiations into 'smaller, less controversial points' in the way you suggest. The structure and format of the negotiations was not something the UK could simply dictate. In fact, the EU was very assertive right at the start by saying: "The EU27 have discussed and this is how the negotiations must be conducted." The UK would probably have preferred to conduct withdrawal and trade discussion simultaneously, but the EU rejected that.

    – Time4Tea
    12 hours ago







  • 1





    @Time4Tea, I honestly don't believe anybody on either side had enough of a clue on how to approach negotiations such that anybody woud have been 'dictating' anything. It just sort of started out of a small snowball of an idea, some talks here and there, and turned into unpassable monstrosity. Looking back, I believe both sides would like to have probably tried out any of a number of different approaches to making the proper arrangements.

    – ouflak
    8 hours ago
















2














The original approach perhaps was flawed. Instead of negotiating smaller easy less controversial points and getting those passed early and often, before tackling bigger thornier issues, they decided to cobble everything together into one big bloated deal. There are advantages and disadvantages to this. But as relates to your question, the big disadvantage is that it can quickly get so complicated that it is impossible to keep updating everybody (or anybody eventually) about the details. It's just too much. This is why it appeared from those of us on the outside the May seemed to go 'silo', excluding even her own Brexit negotiators, and traveling to the EU over 50 times in total (24 trips to Brussels alone). She was away from Parliament often and attempting a broad highly detailed negotiation. It wasn't on purpose. It was just a natural result of the scale of what she was trying to do. She simply lost touch.






share|improve this answer


















  • 5





    I'm not sure the EU would have agreed to split up the withdrawal negotiations into 'smaller, less controversial points' in the way you suggest. The structure and format of the negotiations was not something the UK could simply dictate. In fact, the EU was very assertive right at the start by saying: "The EU27 have discussed and this is how the negotiations must be conducted." The UK would probably have preferred to conduct withdrawal and trade discussion simultaneously, but the EU rejected that.

    – Time4Tea
    12 hours ago







  • 1





    @Time4Tea, I honestly don't believe anybody on either side had enough of a clue on how to approach negotiations such that anybody woud have been 'dictating' anything. It just sort of started out of a small snowball of an idea, some talks here and there, and turned into unpassable monstrosity. Looking back, I believe both sides would like to have probably tried out any of a number of different approaches to making the proper arrangements.

    – ouflak
    8 hours ago














2












2








2







The original approach perhaps was flawed. Instead of negotiating smaller easy less controversial points and getting those passed early and often, before tackling bigger thornier issues, they decided to cobble everything together into one big bloated deal. There are advantages and disadvantages to this. But as relates to your question, the big disadvantage is that it can quickly get so complicated that it is impossible to keep updating everybody (or anybody eventually) about the details. It's just too much. This is why it appeared from those of us on the outside the May seemed to go 'silo', excluding even her own Brexit negotiators, and traveling to the EU over 50 times in total (24 trips to Brussels alone). She was away from Parliament often and attempting a broad highly detailed negotiation. It wasn't on purpose. It was just a natural result of the scale of what she was trying to do. She simply lost touch.






share|improve this answer













The original approach perhaps was flawed. Instead of negotiating smaller easy less controversial points and getting those passed early and often, before tackling bigger thornier issues, they decided to cobble everything together into one big bloated deal. There are advantages and disadvantages to this. But as relates to your question, the big disadvantage is that it can quickly get so complicated that it is impossible to keep updating everybody (or anybody eventually) about the details. It's just too much. This is why it appeared from those of us on the outside the May seemed to go 'silo', excluding even her own Brexit negotiators, and traveling to the EU over 50 times in total (24 trips to Brussels alone). She was away from Parliament often and attempting a broad highly detailed negotiation. It wasn't on purpose. It was just a natural result of the scale of what she was trying to do. She simply lost touch.







share|improve this answer












share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer










answered 12 hours ago









ouflakouflak

1,485613




1,485613







  • 5





    I'm not sure the EU would have agreed to split up the withdrawal negotiations into 'smaller, less controversial points' in the way you suggest. The structure and format of the negotiations was not something the UK could simply dictate. In fact, the EU was very assertive right at the start by saying: "The EU27 have discussed and this is how the negotiations must be conducted." The UK would probably have preferred to conduct withdrawal and trade discussion simultaneously, but the EU rejected that.

    – Time4Tea
    12 hours ago







  • 1





    @Time4Tea, I honestly don't believe anybody on either side had enough of a clue on how to approach negotiations such that anybody woud have been 'dictating' anything. It just sort of started out of a small snowball of an idea, some talks here and there, and turned into unpassable monstrosity. Looking back, I believe both sides would like to have probably tried out any of a number of different approaches to making the proper arrangements.

    – ouflak
    8 hours ago













  • 5





    I'm not sure the EU would have agreed to split up the withdrawal negotiations into 'smaller, less controversial points' in the way you suggest. The structure and format of the negotiations was not something the UK could simply dictate. In fact, the EU was very assertive right at the start by saying: "The EU27 have discussed and this is how the negotiations must be conducted." The UK would probably have preferred to conduct withdrawal and trade discussion simultaneously, but the EU rejected that.

    – Time4Tea
    12 hours ago







  • 1





    @Time4Tea, I honestly don't believe anybody on either side had enough of a clue on how to approach negotiations such that anybody woud have been 'dictating' anything. It just sort of started out of a small snowball of an idea, some talks here and there, and turned into unpassable monstrosity. Looking back, I believe both sides would like to have probably tried out any of a number of different approaches to making the proper arrangements.

    – ouflak
    8 hours ago








5




5





I'm not sure the EU would have agreed to split up the withdrawal negotiations into 'smaller, less controversial points' in the way you suggest. The structure and format of the negotiations was not something the UK could simply dictate. In fact, the EU was very assertive right at the start by saying: "The EU27 have discussed and this is how the negotiations must be conducted." The UK would probably have preferred to conduct withdrawal and trade discussion simultaneously, but the EU rejected that.

– Time4Tea
12 hours ago






I'm not sure the EU would have agreed to split up the withdrawal negotiations into 'smaller, less controversial points' in the way you suggest. The structure and format of the negotiations was not something the UK could simply dictate. In fact, the EU was very assertive right at the start by saying: "The EU27 have discussed and this is how the negotiations must be conducted." The UK would probably have preferred to conduct withdrawal and trade discussion simultaneously, but the EU rejected that.

– Time4Tea
12 hours ago





1




1





@Time4Tea, I honestly don't believe anybody on either side had enough of a clue on how to approach negotiations such that anybody woud have been 'dictating' anything. It just sort of started out of a small snowball of an idea, some talks here and there, and turned into unpassable monstrosity. Looking back, I believe both sides would like to have probably tried out any of a number of different approaches to making the proper arrangements.

– ouflak
8 hours ago






@Time4Tea, I honestly don't believe anybody on either side had enough of a clue on how to approach negotiations such that anybody woud have been 'dictating' anything. It just sort of started out of a small snowball of an idea, some talks here and there, and turned into unpassable monstrosity. Looking back, I believe both sides would like to have probably tried out any of a number of different approaches to making the proper arrangements.

– ouflak
8 hours ago


















draft saved

draft discarded
















































Thanks for contributing an answer to Politics Stack Exchange!


  • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

But avoid


  • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

  • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fpolitics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f39892%2fwhy-didnt-theresa-may-consult-with-parliament-before-negotiating-a-deal-with-th%23new-answer', 'question_page');

);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown





















































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown

































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown







Popular posts from this blog

Log på Navigationsmenu

Wonderful Copenhagen (sang) Eksterne henvisninger | NavigationsmenurSide på frankloesser.comWonderful Copenhagen

Detroit Tigers Spis treści Historia | Skład zespołu | Sukcesy | Członkowie Baseball Hall of Fame | Zastrzeżone numery | Przypisy | Menu nawigacyjneEncyclopedia of Detroit - Detroit TigersTigers Stadium, Detroit, MITigers Timeline 1900sDetroit Tigers Team History & EncyclopediaTigers Timeline 1910s1935 World Series1945 World Series1945 World Series1984 World SeriesComerica Park, Detroit, MI2006 World Series2012 World SeriesDetroit Tigers 40-Man RosterDetroit Tigers Coaching StaffTigers Hall of FamersTigers Retired Numberse