Brexit: MPs reject Theresa May's deal by 149 votes

. [ ] Remain a member of the European Union

. [ ] Leave the European Union

Do you see the huge honking flashing design flaw here?

No? Let's rephrase this with a little substitution:

. [ ] Continue the known reality

. [ ] Do something else (to be determined later)

There's the problem. The second was a catch-all that cast a huge net encompassing all imagined alternatives. Everything that isn't what is currently now, that's option 2.

That's what won, because it's every imagined alternative tossed in a huge pile. Your Own Personal Favorite Idea is option 2! Hooray!

The problem is that when that has to become concrete it turns out that staying in the EU outweighs any one particular instance of the "leave the EU" reality ... and one of them has to be executed on.

WHAT SHOULD HAVE HAPPENED

The plebiscite should have had detailed, specific scenarios and been structured as follows:

. [ ] Remain in the EU

. [ ] Option 1 (addendum 1)

. [ ] Option 2 (addendum 2)

. [ ] ...

. [ ] Option N (addendum n)

Why? Because that's what would actually be happening, the actual reality that has to be contended with, not just some undefined fantasy.

BUT THIS FAVORS STAYING, ALWAYS

No. Not necessarily. If the Brexiters could offer a real-world, concrete, provable, air-tight demonstrably better alternative instead of amorphous good-feelings then they can persuade the public with this imagined reality instead of relying on a reality imagined.

What shouldn't have been allowed, and why this is a total mess, is an option of amorphous make-believe. Make-believe will always win.

But, by design, exceptions don't automatically propagate from Parliament to its parent (the citizens) so the process is currently wedged in some kind of undefined behaviour. And no-one has the privileges to HUP the job.

In case it needs reminding, those elections did occur, and May ended up needing to go in bed with the DUP to stay in power.

Edit: ok, I see what you've done with your edit...

> Imagine the vote was vice versa and the right-wing would be crying about unfair campaign ads and Brussel influence, not one person would take them seriously.

Everyone would have correctly raised that it's horse shit, because the EC is fairly transparent in what it does if you bother to take a look.

The real wtf in recent decades has been that Brussels is a perfect scapegoat: as a national politician you can go to the European Council and promote what have you; EC and EP pick it up and deliver; and then you can turn around and tell voters "see it's Brussel's fault" because national newspapers aren't reporting enough on what's going on in the EU.

And just to be clear, this is nothing new. It already was a problem 20 years ago. And insofar as I've been made aware by the law teachers I had back then, 40 years ago as well.

There's basically two big stumbling blocks:

The first is that there has to be a customs check between either: (1) The EU/Republic of Ireland , (2) ROI and Northern Ireland, or (3) Northern Ireland and Britain (the island).

(1) is unacceptable to the EU. (2) breaks the Good Friday agreement and could reignite violence in Ireland. (3) is unacceptable to the Northern Ireland political party propping up the government.

The second is that from the perspective of the EU, Britain has to get a worse deal by leaving the EU than what they had when they were in it. Otherwise, every other country sees that it's better to be out than in and the EU risks collapse.

These are more or less intractable problems. I'm sure we've all had the experience where an IT project is obviously doomed but nobody wants the responsibility and blame for pulling the plug. That's where Brexit is today.