Loyalists may choose to look the other way but voters decided on March 29th - if not before - that the toxic “Conservative” brand is as deceased as DeLorean. Parties which have abandoned or flouted democracy face being ousted for a generation. For every month that this debacle continues, another decade of rehabilitation may well be required. It’s like an ocean liner, holed below the waterline, most of whose passengers have already abandoned ship. New Captain? It's too late, we’ve made other arrangements.
MPs, MEPs and others who are not of a closed, controlling and secretive disposition have a choice. They are free to join or start a new, open, supportive and democratically accountable party, or go independent - but time is of the essence.

The only way in which this country can restore its democracy is to expunge the BBC MPs in a general election.

In this context, BBC stands for Brainwashed Blairites & Cameroons, although other interpretations may be available.

Hi Stu255! Presumably, you are blaming DC for offering the referendum in the first place despite the fact that it helped the Conservatives to win the GE in 2015.

I imagine that your main problem is with the electorate for ignoring the europhile establishment and Project Fear Mk1. The good judgement and innate common sense of the British electorate is legendary. When governments or PMs are rejected, it’s usually for a pretty good reason. The bottom line is that the silent majority made their decision and expect their MPs to deliver it – but their patience is wearing thin, particularly with a PM who is self-evidently in an extreme state of denial. What’s next? Will she try to convince us that if we don’t accept her claim that BRINO and Brexit are one and the same thing, Boris will release weapons of mass destruction from just 45 minutes up the Metropolitan Line?

I’m afraid that your response simply reflects your raw prejudices. I could easily respond with mine! (What if there was nothing wrong with your aircraft and it was just the pilot who was suffering from an irrational delusion?) However, prolonging this tortured analogy would benefit neither of us – and I’m speaking as someone with 25 years in the avionics (“black box”) business - and a pilot’s licence.

One of the things I encounter in my post-aviation career is decision-makers in business struggling with change. Resolving problems caused by acute risk aversion can be tricky but it’s certainly possible. First, split it into its two components – understanding/assessing the risk and supporting a process which diminishes the aversion.

There’s a retired airline pilot in California who also helps businesses by teaching best-practice methodologies from the aviation industry. He’s more famous for ditching his Airbus in the Hudson River after flying into a flock of geese. No parachutes or fanciful “escape systems” were involved …. and everyone survived.

So, why would any Brexit-supporting MPs wish to sustain this discredited Government any longer? Should they not stick by their democratic principles and force a GE?
At least that might give voters the opportunity to elect those making clear unequivocal pledges to vote to take the UK out of the EU or those pledging to rescind the referendum result and withdraw Article 50 so that we can all go down with the "Teutanic".

Interesting! Are you saying there has been no legal barrier to UK/EU trade negotiations prior to 29th March all along? If so, why did May/Robbins concede it? Was no reciprocal concession provided? If that is is the case, the level of incompetence, or duplicity or both is even worse than I'd thought!

Sorry 1timetory but no self-respecting pilot would ever take off with no instruments, no training, no communications, insufficient fuel and head for a destination experiencing a thunderstorm, no matter what he or she was told beforehand, or by whom. The pilot is ultimately responsible for the safety of those on board.

May was daft enough, as you put it, to take on the job of negotiating a BRINO deal and trying to sell it as Brexit.

In the 2016 referendum, the British people a made a democratic decision to leave the EU but TM’s Withdrawal Agreement was incapable of delivering it. She tried hard to convince the people, her party and Parliament but despite heavily biased coverage by most of the broadcast media, it failed spectacularly. Outside the Westminster bubble, it looked, sounded, felt and smelt like BRINO. The reputational damage to her party also looks terminal. Few willingly associate with a toxic brand, let alone such a colossal defeat. What could possibly explain this unholy mess?

It’s relatively easy to recognise the trigger, or in accident investigation terminology, the primary cause. This case is a classic example of “pilot error” or leadership failure, for which Theresa May must accept responsibility. The charge sheet is too long for this blog but it’s all in the public domain anyway. Of course, blaming the pilot doesn’t guarantee the problem has been solved or that similar mistakes won’t happen in future. For that, the fundamental, underlying, root cause needs to be identified. That requires a deeper, forensic examination.

Could it perhaps date back to the Blair and Cameron era, where – under the laudable guise of greater diversity – prospective parliamentary candidate short lists were imposed upon constituency parties by their respective HQs? Was there a hidden pro-EU bias? How else can the embarrassing discrepancy between the proportion of Leave-supporting constituencies and the number of Leave-supporting MPs be explained? With the Conservatives, the ratio appears to be about 3:1 and with Labour, 2:1. Neither emerges from this debacle with their integrity intact.

Party loyalty is an admirable trait but democracy is paramount and other characteristics, such as vision, honesty, openness, resilience and adaptability, are at least as important. It is clearly in the national interest that voters have the option to elect a political party which will implement this historic decision properly. Ultimately, the name of the tribe on the ballot sheet doesn’t really matter.

Our next Prime Minister needs to adopt a radically different approach. If EU rules dictate that trade negotiations can commence only once we have left, so be it. Surely, it’s in the best interests of the EU and the UK to agree appropriate interim standards and (where necessary) tariffs after 29th March until such time as a comprehensive Free Trade Agreement can be put in place. It may be hard to imagine but with the euro under threat of collapse and unprecedented levels of domestic unrest, Brussels may wish to conclude these negotiations just as quickly as we do!

We must also correct current imbalances. If MPs refuse to represent their constituents, there needs to be a right of recall, as in other democracies. The broadcast media needs to be independent and accountable. Despite being counter-productive, pro-EU establishment figures have been given a disproportionate amount of air time. There is justified outrage over the institutional bias shown by the BBC. What we need is BBD – Bring Back Democracy!

We have a PM who has wilfully connived with rogue civil servants to humiliate two Brexit Secretaries and produce a Withdrawal Agreement which is “almost good enough” only for the so-called establishment and some of the 0.1% of UK businesses classified as big. Remember that the other 99.9% are the Small and Medium Enterprises which generate over half of the UK’s GDP. While only about one in eight do any business in the EU, we still have to comply with EU bureaucracy, most of which is designed by protectionists, for protectionists.

Few, if any, Leave voters who trusted and supported Mrs May and her party will ever do so again. Labour is so dysfunctional, it would be unelectable in normal times. The LibDems and Greens are in a persistent vegetative state and UKIP is supposedly flirting with the English Defence League. Hopefully, the Monster Raving Loony Party is preparing to fill the vacuum.

A “broad church” party can accommodate different views over a range of issues but no organisation which is irrevocably split over a core philosophy is sustainable. Today is indeed D-Day, where the “D” stands for Democracy - government of the people, by the people, for the people. True democrats question why such a large minority can be duped into abandoning it – and for what? Are they unaware of, or have they forgotten the sacrifice made by all these millions of soldiers, sailors and airmen in two World Wars? Would they really prefer to be controlled by a group of self-appointed oppressors who consider that accountability should apply to everyone except themselves? Are they prepared to accept the destruction of beautiful countries like Greece and Italy, mass youth unemployment across a swathe of southern Europe and a single currency that only survives thanks to quantitative easing and the “Target 2” trillion euro loan which the German people are only just beginning to realise can never be repaid? And these people have the audacity to call themselves euro-philes? They’re either euro-sadists or euro-masochists – probably both!

Taking to the lifeboats (a.k.a. the WTO plan) may involve some temporary discomfort but when the alternative is remaining on a flimsy vessel heading straight for the icebergs, it really is time to listen to the majority - and replace the crew.

News reports suggest that the Government hasn’t got a prayer. Perhaps this one will do:

Our Theresa, who art deluded, harrowed be thy brow.
Thy Withdrawal Agreement,
Thy ECJ, Customs Union, Single Market and Backstop,
Are dead, but not in heaven.

Give us this day, that for which we voted,
And forgive us for not escaping sooner,
As we forgive those who voted for a common market,
(But not those who gave us Maastricht and Lisbon).

While trials for treason or treachery are a temptation,
Just deliver us from the Evil Union,
We shall retain democracy,
With friendship, free trade and accountability,
For ever and ever.

Anon

Long term members of a political party are faithful through thick and thin. Support continues even if priorities, objectives, strategies, policies, purpose, vision and values change. They are like life-long supporters of a football club such as Aston Villa, or West Ham. As there are no circumstances in which they will change their allegiance, they can safely be described as tribal.

If a party wants to attract new supporters it needs to pro-actively engage with non-members. By far the most important issue for a party seeking to extend its support base is its choice of leader. If a party doesn’t know which leadership candidate is most likely to convince prospective supporters, how on earth can it make a sensible choice?

The term “groupthink” is more often associated with failure than success. Ignoring the views of millions of former supporters is unlikely to buck the trend. Just look what has happened in France, the United States and indeed our referendum. The traditional “left versus right” axis was blown away. The new paradigm is corporatism versus people power (or democratic accountability) with the latter in the ascendency. Labour’s current leadership may want to take us back to the dark ages but for some young activists, Corbyn offers an appealing “anti-corporate” alternative. Meanwhile, the Tories are still chasing the elusive “centre ground” – part of an old paradigm which no longer exists – and yet hasn’t grasped why the party performed so badly last time, let alone how to fix the problem.